















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































t 


I 





























































































































































* 














































































































































































































































































V 











































































































































. * 































































I 


V 

















/ 















OUTLINES 


OF 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY; 


FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS IN 


THE NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION. 




“In the department of Christian Theology, a course of instruction shall be given on the Evidences 
of Christianity, and on Christian Doctrines, which shall be founded on the Bible, shall be system¬ 
atically arranged, and shall be sustained by a full examination of all the important arguments and 
objections.” Laws of the Newton Theological Institution, p. 4. 


BOSTON. 

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR BY 

GEO. C. RAND & AVERY, 3 CORN HILL. 

18 6 1 . 














Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 18(51, by 
A L Y A II IIOYEY, 

In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 







CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


INTRODUCTION. 

§ I. Aim of this Course of Study. 

§ II. Qualifications for it. 

§ III. Benefits of it. 

§ IV. Methods of teaching Christian Theology. 

§ V. Validity of the Reasoning employed. 

§ VI. Arrangement of Topics. 

§ VII. List of Theological Writers. 

§ I. Aim of this Course of Study. 

The direct or proximate aim of theological study should be 
twofold, viz: — 

1. To ascertain the various Doctrines of Christianity, and the 
Chief Reasons for believing them. 

R. a. Theology has been denominated Biblical, Dogmatic, 
Historical, Polemical, etc., according to the aim and method of its 
treatment by different writers. 

R. b. It will be our aim to make the following course chiefly 
Biblical. For only by so doing can we pay suitable respect to the 
Word of God, guard ourselves from the danger of interpreting 
that Word into harmony with our independent speculations, 
habituate our minds to a method of discussing Christian doctrines 
safe in itself and adapted to the pulpit, obtain the clearest and 
deepest view of religious truth, and derive the greatest spiritual 
benefit from our studies. 

R. c. Our arrangement of topics will, however, be conformed, 
so far as possible, to the logical order, without regard to the order 
of their presentation in the Bible. For the Scriptures do not 
attempt to exhibit the truths of religion in a scientific form. 



4 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


They present these truths, as the works of God are presented in 
nature, to be examined and classified by us. 

R. d. We shall not restrict ourselves to Biblical topics and 
arguments; for many important truths are tacitly assumed by the 
Sacred Writers; and whatever religious truths are either taught, 
assumed, or necessarily implied by the sacred oracles, belong of 
right to a system of Christian theology. 

R. e. Some degree of prominence will naturally be given to 
special theological questions of the day. For it is not wise to 
leave out of sight the*age in which we live and the specialities of 
our own labor. Yet we must guard against the error of supjiosing 
the leading questions of to-day equally so in all time. Doubtless 
we are more inclined to give undue attention to that which now 
agitates society than we are to withhold from it proper attention. 

Another part of our aim in this course should be: — 

2. To arrange these Doctrines, so far as possible, in a System, 
that shall exhibit their connection with one another and their 
dependence one upon another. 

R. a. Examples of this connection and dependence may be 
seen in the doctrines of the Righteousness of God and the Atone¬ 
ment for sin, of the Depravity of Man and his Regeneration by the 
Holy Spirit, and many others. 

R. b. This aim or object is far less important than the one 
first mentioned. Little space will therefore be given to it in the 
outline; yet it is worthy of much thought on the part of every 
student. 

R. c. Some have doubted the possibility of arranging the doc¬ 
trines of Christianity in a system, and have even gone so far as 
to ridicule all efforts to do this: but without sufficient reason. 
The success, however, of such efforts must in the end depend very 
much upon the following conditions as respects these doctrines: — 

1. Their character , as being true or false; for truth is always 
self-consistent, while falsehood is often self-contradictory. Pure 
falsehood may indeed be self-consistent, but it does not commend 
itself to the human mind as truth. 

2. The 'proportion which the revealed doctrines of the system 
bear to the whole number in it. The system of Christian truth 
may be compared with a building, every part of which is necessary 
to its perfection; yet an architect may perhaps supply certain parts 
by his knowledge of those which are given. From the peculiari- 


INTRODUCTION. SECTION II. 


5 


ties of a single bone, Cuvier was able to conjecture all the other 
parts of an extinct species of animal. 

3. The indications afforded by the Scriptures of definite con¬ 
nection between the revealed parts of the system, e. g. Righte¬ 
ousness, Atonement, Pardon; Christ’s theanthropic nature, his 
vicarious suffering, his kingship; Depravity, Regeneration, Faith, 
Pardon, Sanctification. 

4. The kind of affinity existing between natural religion and 
Christianity. If these are identical in part, the principles taught 
by the former may possibly supply certain unexpressed elements of 
the latter. Whether this supply is really needed, or whether, if 
needed, it is furnished, can only be determined by a very careful 
study and comparison of the two systems ; that is, of the religious 
knowledge which may be drawn from nature and revelation 
respectively. 

5. On the whole, there is reason to hope for success in classify¬ 
ing Christian doctrines and reducing them to a system. It will, 
however, be a work of time. 

§ II. Qualifications for this Course of Study. 

The qualifications most needed by one who enters upon theo¬ 
logical study are these : — 

1. /Soundness of Mind. The questions to be considered are 
deeply interesting and very complicated. Only a well-balanced 
mind can study them with success. But while this is true, it is 
also true that a knowledge of systematic theology is not necessary 
in order to salvation, nor even in order to much usefulness in the 
ministry. 

2. Personal Piety. Andrew Fuller remarks that the Scriptures 
“ exhibit a beauty and a life utterly incomprehensible to an unholy 
mind,” and argues that “ to suppose them within the comprehen¬ 
sion of an abandoned, vicious mind, would be to their reproach 
rather than to their praise.” hi. 602. 

Augustine says: — 

“ It is therefore reasonable, that, in certain things pertaining to 
the doctrine of salvation, which things we are not yet able to 
understand, but shall hereafter be able, faith should precede reason, 
that the heart may be purified and fitted to receive and bear the 
light of a great reason.” Yol. n. 453, (Ep. 120.) 


6 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


The language of Anselm is similar: — 

“ Sicut rectus ordo exigit ut profunda Christianae fidei credamus, 
priusquam ea praesumamus ratione discutere, ita negligentia mihi 
videtur, si, postquam confirmati sumus in fide, non studemus quod 
credimus intelligere.” Cur Deus Homo , i. 2. 

This view is authorized by the language of Christ in John 7:17; 
and of Paul in 1 Cor. 2: 15. Of. also Ps. 25: 9 ; and 119: 18. 

3. Fairness of Mind. We cannot study the topics belonging to 
a theological course with indifference , but we can with fairness. 
We cannot forget our past experience, but we may give it no more 
than its due weight. It is unquestionably our duty to examine 
with perfect honesty and candor the questions which come before 
us, never fearing to learn our own ignorance and to receive new 
truth. It is a reproach to theologians that the language of Waren- 
fels , (ii. p. 391,) respecting the Bible, is but too true: — 

“ Hie liber est in quo quserit sua dogmata quisque; 

Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua.” 

4. A Knowledge of Exegesis. The importance of this qualifica¬ 
tion cannot be doubted. At every step we are referred to the 
Bible as our chart, and we shall hardly over-estimate the advantage 
of being able to read that chart correctly. 

R. Some acquaintance with Intellectual Philosophy, with the 
Natural Sciences, and with both Ecclesiastical and Secular history, 
is exceedingly desirable, though not perhaps indispensable, in 
prosecuting this study. 

§ III. Benefits of this Course of Study. 

The benefits to be expected from such a course of study are 
many: E. g. 

1. More correct and comprehensive views of Christianity. This 
result must be regarded as very desirable in itself. Says Augus¬ 
tine, in a letter to Consentius, (Tomus n. p. 453,) who had inferred 
from 1 Cor. 1: 27, that “ non tarn ratio requirenda, quam auctoritas 
est sequenda sanctorum,” — “corrige definitionem tuam, non ut 
fidem respuas, sed ut ea quae fidei firmitate jam tenes, etiam 
rationis luce conspicias. Absit namque ut hoc in nobis Deus 
oderit, in quo nos reliquis animantibus excellentiores creavit. 
Absit, inquam, ut ideo credamus, ne rationem accipiamus sive 
quaeramus; cum etiam credere non possemus, nisi rationales 
animas haberemus,” etc. But it is still more so in its conse¬ 
quences : E. g. 


INTRODUCTION. SECTION IV. 


7 


2. A more rapid growth in grace. The remark of Tholnck is 
true, that “the science of theology itself, when constructed in a 
Christian spirit, has a practical and edifying character. It should 
therefore be studied, at least in part, for the purpose of obtaining 
spiritual good. “ I am conscious,” says Melancthon, “ that I have 
never discussed subjects with any other (different) desire than 
this,—to make myself better.” Bib. Sac. i. p. 184, sq. The 
piety of Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Pascal, Edwards, 
and such as these, was evidently connected as cause or effect, 
perhaps as both, with their theological study. 

3. A firmer confidence in the Christian religion. Christianity 
will bear examination, and will appear most admirable and divine 
to him who, ceteris paribus , has the clearest view of it as a 
system of truth. It is of the light and of the day, as it calls upon 
its friends to be. To decry systematic theology is therefore to 
affirm that the Scriptures do not teach harmonious truths, or that 
they do not teach them with divine authority. Indeed, a denial 
of inspiration and contempt of systematic theology naturally go 
together, as do the belief of inspiration and a desire to know and 
compare and arrange the doctrines which are contained in the 
Bible. Cf. e. g. the rationalistic interpreters in Germany, the 
Broad Church party in England, the Unitarians in America, with 
any distinguished theologians. 

4. Greater wisdom and success in commending it to men. A 
minister’s success is equal to the balance of good over evil in his 
influence. He should aim not only to make an impression, deep 
and permanent, but also to make a perfectly right one. Many 
preachers, while doing much good for the moment, sow the seeds 
of evil to spring up afterwards. A careful study of theology does 
much to prevent this. 

R. If what has now been said is true, we may adopt the lan¬ 
guage of Cicero, as we enter upon the present course of study: 
“ Iis de rebus agimus, quae sunt etiam negotiis anteponendae.” Be 
Nat. Beor. n. 1. 

§ IV. Methods of teaching Christian Theology. 

The methods of theological teaching now current are the fol¬ 
lowing : — 

1. By Text-Books, which are made the immediate source of 
doctrine and argument. This method is followed by the Roman 


8 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Catholics, and to some extent we think by Episcopalians and 
Methodists. It has the advantage of making the teacher’s labor 
comparatively easy, and the disadvantage of making it compara¬ 
tively useless. 

2. By Lectures , which are read by the teacher while notes are 
taken by the students. This method prevails in the German Uni¬ 
versities, and was practised by Dr. Woods of Andover. It gives 
the teacher an opportunity to state his views in full, and support 
them by elaborate argument, but it often fails to interest the stu¬ 
dents and put them in possession of his exact views. 

3. By an Outline of doctrine and proof, copied by the students 
and substantially committed to memory. This method is followed 
by Prof. Park, whose outline is very full. It gives to students the 
exact opinions of their teacher, but it precludes almost entirely 
free discussion and inquiry. 

4. By Extemporaneous Discussion , resembling the Socratic dia¬ 
logue. Dr. Sears, formerly of this Institution, preferred this 
method as one which leads to independence and earnestness of 
thought. But while it has this excellence, it is less adapted to 
cultivate habits of accurate thought, and sometimes fails to give 
students with fulness and precision the views of their teacher. 

We propose, therefore, to unite the last two methods, and secure, 
so far as possible, the advantages of both. Our plan includes the 
following particulars: — 

1. A Brief Statement of Doctrine and Proof to be employed 
as a guide in study and as a synopsis of views. 

2. A Review and Examination of this outline at the next ses¬ 
sion after any part of it is given. 

3. Essays by different members of the class on the principal 
topics of theology. 

R. a. In connection with the review, we desire to have the 
doubts or difficulties or objections which may be felt by any mem¬ 
ber of the class freely stated. The only caution necessary is this, 
not to anticipate themes which must be treated at a later stage of 
the course. 

R. b. For myself, I will appropriate the words of Augustine 
(De Trin. l. ii.) : “Non pigebit me, sicubi haesito quaerere; nec 
pudebit, sicubi erro, discere. Quisquis audit hoc vel legit, ubi 
pariter certus est, pergat mecum: ubi pariter haesitat, quaerat 
mecum; ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat ad me: ubi meum, 


INTRODUCTION. SECTION V. 


9 


revocet me. Ita ingrediamus simul charitatis viam, tendentes ad 
eum de quo dictum est, Psal. 10: Quagrite faciem ejus semper.” 

§ V. Validity of the Reasoning employed. 

Most of the evidence on which the facts and doctrines of Chris¬ 
tianity rest is moral ox probable. Hence, it is important for us to 
form some estimate, and a correct one, of the force of such evi¬ 
dence and of the validity of reasoning founded on it. In treating 
this topic we observe — 

1. That the normal action of our mental powers is trustworthy. 
Indeed, a denial of the general veracity of our mental action 
nullifies itself; for, being itself a mental act, it loses character with 
mental action in general, and cannot be trusted while proclaiming 
itself a deceiver. 

2. The proper standard of value for evidence is the degree of 
power which it has to produce belief in the mind of man. The 
truth of this observation follows from the truth of the preceding. 
Says Dr. Alexander, “ When all evidence, relating to a proposition, 
is before the mind, that is true which is easiest to be believed ; 
because it is easier to believe with evidence than against it.” 

3. The evidence afforded by our primitive beliefs 1 and judg¬ 
ments, 2 by clear demonstration or perception, and by distinct 
recollection, is of the highest order; for it is entirely convincing, 
and to most if not all minds indubitable. 

4. Moral or probable evidence rests for the most part on testi¬ 
mony and analogy, and its force is exceedingly variable. It may 
be very weak : it may be irresistible in strength; its weight may 
be so small as to be scarcely appreciable, or so great as to produce 
absolute assurance. 

5. The evidence of testimony, e. g. may be strong enough to 
justify us in affirming the certainty of what it declares. Says Dr. 
Alexander: “Any fact which would be believed on the evidence 
of the senses, may be reasonably believed as testimony.” 3 Says 
Dr. Reid, “ When there is an agreement of many witnesses in a 
great variety of circumstances, without the possibility of previous 
concert, the evidence may be equal to that of demonstration.” 4 

1 Of Time, Space, and the Infinite, perhaps others. 

2 Identity and Difference, Whole and Parts, Cause and Effect. Cf. McCosh on the 
Intuitions of the Mind. Books ii. and in. 

8 Evid. 57. 4 ii. 386. 

2 


10 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Coleridge remarks, that “the man who will believe nothing but by 
force of demonstrative evidence, is not in a state of mind to be 
reasoned with on any subject,” (Aids, 135.) Augustine affirmed 
that he had no more doubt of the existence of Antioch than of 
Carthage,’ though he had lived in the latter, but had never seen 
the former. 

6. No presumption against the truth of Christianity can be 
taken from the mere fact of its resting chiefly on probable evi¬ 
dence. For (a) this kind of evidence may be as trustworthy as 
any other, and ( b) it is adapted to the matter in question. 

R. cl. Moral evidence is just as binding on the conscience as 
demonstrative. It is the evidence on which we must act in all the 
relations of life. We eat and drink, plant and sow, admonish and 
entreat, argue and persuade, on the ground of moral evidence. It 
cannot be demonstrated that any of these acts will lead to the 
hoped-for result. Says Greenleaf (i. 496) : “ The subordinate rules 
of evidence are silenced by the most transcendent and universal 
rule, that in all cases that evidence is good, than which the nature 
of the subject presumes none better to be attainable.” 

R. b. When there is conflicting evidence, or that which seems 
to be conflicting, we are bound to accept the stronger as decisive 
in respect to our duty. This is true, even if the preponderance be 
slight. 

R. c. A little evidence should bind the conscience, when there 
is nothing to counteract it. Of. Gambier’s Guide, Butler’s Analogy 
(Pt. n. 6, 7), Hopkins’s Lectures, p. 23, sq., Greenleaf on the Har¬ 
mony, and on Evidence, etc. 

§ VI. Arrangement of Topics for the Course. 

We adopt the following arrangement of topics as on the whole 
most natural and logical. 

1. Bibliology , which treats of God’s Word as the chief source 
of Christian knowledge. 

2. Theology proper, which treats of the Being and Attributes 
of God. 

3. Anthropology , which treats of the Moral Nature and Charac¬ 
ter of Man. 

4. Soteriology , which treats of the Remedial Dispensation. 


Ep. 120. 


INTRODUCTION. SECTION VII. 


11 


5. Eschatology , which treats of the Final State of Man. 

R. It is questionable whether the first and second topics are 
placed in their natural order. It may be said, on the one hand, 
that the Bible is the chief source of Christian doctrine, and it is 
clearly proper, therefore, to test its character before proceeding to 
draw from it as an authority; but, on the other hand, it may be 
said, that to prove the Bible a revelation from God, we must know 
there is a God. A more strictly logical arrangement of the first 
two topics might be secured by dividing the second, and treating 
1. Of the Existence of God ; 2. Of the Bible as a revelation from 
him; and 3. Of his Attributes , etc., as revealed in Nature and in 
his Word. It may, however, be doubted whether the advantage 
of logical sequence would in this case compensate for the disad¬ 
vantage arising from a division of theology proper into two parts 
and the repetition consequent thereupon. It will be wiser, we 
think, to assume the existence of God at the outset, and afterwards 
examine the reasons which justify our belief in his existence. 

§ VII. List of Theological Writers. 

In this Section, we shall mention very briefly some of the leading 
writers on Systematic Theology. A few will be mentioned who 
have discussed particular doctrines only. 

1. Athanasius was born in Alexandria about a. d. 300, and 
died there in a. d. 373. 

His doctrinal writings are the following: 1. A Discourse 
respecting the Incarnation and the Logos. 2. An Exposition of 
his Faith hi the Trinity. 3. A Letter on the Decrees of the 
Nicene Council. 4. A Letter on the Doctrine of Dionysius, Bishop 
of Alexandria. 5. Four Orations against the Arians. 6. A Letter 
to Serapion. 7. Another to Epictetus; and 8. A Treatise, in two 
books, against Apollinaris. All these works relate to the Divinity of 
Christ, or to the doctrine of the Trinity, in some of its aspects. 
Athanasius is a clear, logical, and earnest writer. No one of the 
Greek fathers is worthy of so careful study as a theologian. 

2. Augustine was born Nov. 13, 353, and died Aug. 26, 430. 
His doctrinal works are very numerous; and, apart from his De 
Civitate Dei , a work even more comprehensive and doctrinal 
than Edwards’s History of Redemption, may be arranged in three 
classes. 1. Those which relate to the Trinity, in opposition to the 
Arians and Manichaeans. 2. Those which relate to Anthropology, 


12 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


in opposition to the Pelagians; and 3. Those which relate to the 
polity and purity of the church, in opposition to the Donatists. 

These works evince fair scholarship, great depth and acuteness 
of thought, a vigorous imagination, and oftentimes fervid piety. 

3. John of Damascus was born somewhat prior to a. d. 700, at 
Damascus. The time of his death is unknown; but it was 
between a. d. 754 and 787. 

His principal Treatise was entitled, An Exposition of the 
Orthodox Faith. It is the earliest work on systematic theology, 
but not strictly original. It is composed largely of quotations 
from the fathers of the Church, with connecting and explanatory 
remarks. 

4. Anselm of Canterbury was born in a. d. 1033, at Aosta, 
of Piedmont, and died a. d. 1109. 

His theological writings were as follows: 1. Monologium de 
Divinitatis essentia. 2. Proslogion de Dei existentia. 3. De fide 
Trinitatis et de incarnatione Verbi. 4. Cur Deus Homo. The 
second contains his famous a priori demonstration of the existence 
of God, and the fourth is the earliest elaborate statement of the 
commercial theory of the Atonement. 

5. Peter of Lombardy was born near Novara, in Lombardy, 
about a. d. 1100, and died, according to some authorities, in a. d. 
1160; according to others, in a. d. 1164. His great work in 
theology was entitled Sententiarum Libri Quatuor. It resem¬ 
bles somewhat the Treatise of John of Damascus, but evinces 
much greater acuteness. It quotes from the fathers, and attempts 
to reconcile their conflicting views. 

“ The Sentences ” was for a long time used as a text-book on 
theology in Catholic universities. Teachers lectured upon it as 
they did on the works of Aristotle. 

6. Thomas Aquinas was born in a. d. 1227, at Aquireo, in 
Campania, and died in a. d. 1274. His principal work was 
entitled Summa Theologica, and divided into three parts. In 
Part First, he treats of the Being and Attributes of God, of Pre¬ 
destination, Providence, and the Trinity; of Angels; of the 
Creation of our World; and of Man,—his nature, primitive state, 
the origin of evil, free will, the penalty of sin, etc. In Part Second, 
he treats of the powers of the human soul, the nature and extent 
of moral law, and indeed of all questions in Christian Ethics. In 
Part Third, he treats of the Person and Work of Christ, and of the 


INTRODUCTION. SECTION VII. 


13 


Sacraments. Aquinas belonged to the Augustinian school of 
theologians. 

7. Melancthon was born at Brettin, in Baden, Feb. 16, 1497, 
spent most of his life at Wittenberg as professor in the University, 
and died April 19, 1560. His chief theological work was entitled 
Loci Communes. It grew out of lectures on the Epistle to the 
Romans; and passing lightly over the doctrines of God, the 
Trinity, the Creation, and the Person of Christ,— doctrines which 
had hitherto occupied the principal place in systematic theology, 
— he gave the body of his work to the doctrine of Redemption. 
Depravity, the will, regeneration, justification, and similar themes, 
were fully discussed. In the first edition, he reproduced the 
Augustinian system; but he afterwards adopted a substantially 
Arminian view. 

8. Calvin was born in Picardy, at Uoyon, July 10, 1509, and 
died in Geneva, May 19, 1564. 

His commentaries are theological as well as exegetical. But he 
also wrote a treatise on Christian Doctrine, entitled Institutio 
Christianae Religionis. The great features of his system are well 
understood. 

9. Hutter was born in Jan. 1563, at Uellingen, near Ulm, and 
died at Wittenberg, Oct. 23, 1616. 

His theological works are the following: 1. His Libri Chris¬ 
tianae Concordiae Explicatio. 2. His Compendium locorum Theo- 
logicorum, to take the place of Melancthon’s Loci Communes, 
on account of the “crypto Calvinism” of the latter. 3. His 
Loci Communes Theologici, more copious than the preceding. 
All these are Lutheran authorities. 

10. Gerhard was born at Quedlinburg, Oct. 17, 1582, and died 
at Jena, Aug. 20, 1637. 

His theological works are — 1. Doctrina Catholica et Evan- 
gelica, 3 vols. 2. Loci Communes Theologici, 9 vols. This 
work may be considered a thesaurus of Lutheran theology. 

11. Grotius was born at Delft, in Holland, in 1853, passed most 
of his life in Holland and France, was a very distinguished scholar 
and writer, and died Aug. 28, 1645. 

Two of his works deserve notice. 1. His treatise, De veritate 
Religionis Christianae,— a con^rehensive and learned treatise on 
the truth of Christianity; and 2. His Defensio fidei Catholicae de 
satisfactione Christi adversus F. Socinus. The Grotian theory o 


14 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


the Atonement is nearly equivalent to what is now called the 
Rectoral view. Grotius was a decided Arminian. 

12. Episcopius was born at Amsterdam, in the year 1583, 
where also he died in 1643. 

His theological works were — 1. His Confessio seu declaratio 
sententiae pastorum Remonstrantium. 2. His Institutiones 
Theologicae, — lectures at Amsterdam to his students. 3. His 
Responsio ad qusestiones Theologicas, 64. Episcopius hesitated 
as to the divinity of Christ, and esteemed the doctrine of his 
supernatural birth of no consequence. 

13. Quenstedt was born at Quedlinburg in the year 1617, 
and died at Wittenberg, May 22, 1688. 

His chief work was entitled, Theologia Didactico-polemica, 
sive systema Theologicum, in 2 vols. It is learned, compre¬ 
hensive, logical; though less attractive in style than the work of 
Turretin. 

14. Turretin was born in Geneva, Oct. 17, 1623, where also 
he died, Sept. 28, 1687. 

His chief work is entitled, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae. 
The first two volumes are very able, and for the most part correct. 

15. Buddeus was born at Anclam, June 25, 1667, and died at 
Jena, Nov. 19, 1729. 

Of his writings we mention the following: 1. His Institu¬ 
tiones Theologiae Moralis. 2. His Theses de Atheismo et 
Superstitione. 3. His Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae— a 
valuable treatise. 

16. Stapfer was born at Brougg, in 1708, and died at Diesbach, 
of Berne, in 1775. 

His theological works were: 1. Institutiones Theologiae Po- 
lemicae, 5 vols. The first volume of this work is a masterpiece 
of its kind. 2. Grounds of the True Religion, 12 vols. 3. 
Christian Ethics, 6 vols. Some of these works are diffuse, but 
they all evince logical power. 

17. Mosheim was born at Lubec, Oct. 9, 1694, and died at 
Gottingen, Sept. 9, 1755. 

He is chiefly remembered as an Ecclesiastical historian; but he 
wrote also on systematic theology. 1. His Ethics of the Holy 
Scriptures, in 5 vols.; and 2. Elements of Dogmatic Theology. 
The style of this latter work is remarkably perspicuous, and one 
who has but a slight knowledge of Latin can read it without 
difficulty. 


INTRODUCTION. SECTION VII. 


15 


18. Melchior Canus was born at Tarraco, Spain, about a. d. 
1500, and died in 1560. 

His chief theological work was entitled Loci Theologici, in 
12 books. It treats of the sources of Christian doctrines, viz: 
Scripture and Tradition, the Arrangement of these doctrines, and 
the proper Method of discussion. 

19. Bellarmin was born in Tuscany, Oct. 4, 1542, and died at 
Rome, Sept. 27, 1621. 

His work entitled, Disputationes de Controversiis christianae 
fidei adv. hujus temporis haereticos, discusses all points then in 
debate between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. It is 
not intentionally unjust to the Protestants, and it lays open the 
papal system without disguise. 

20. Jansenius was born Oct. 28, 1585, in Leerdam, New Hol¬ 
land, and died May 6, 1638. 

His principal work was entitled, Augustinus seu doctrina 
St. Augustini de humanae naturae sanitate, aegritudine, medicina, 
adversus Pelagianos,” etc. It is a work of great ability, and sets 
forth the Augustinian theology with precision and vigor. He is 
said to have read the writings of Augustine against the Pelagians 
twenty times and the rest of his writings ten times through. 

21. Bunyan, J. was born in 1628, at Elstow, near Bedford, 
and died Aug. 31, 1688. 

Of his writings, the following may be mentioned as theological 
in substance, if not in form: 1. Justification by an Imputed 
Righteousness. 2. The Work of Christ as an Advocate. 3. Saved 
by Grace. 4. The Law and Grace unfolded. 5. Some Gospel 
Truths opened, Divine and human nature of Christ. 6. Defence 
of the doctrine of justification by faith. 7. Reprobation asserted. 

22. Gill, J. was born at Kettering, Nov. 23, 1697, and died at 
Horselydown, Oct. 14, 1771. He is chiefly known as a Commen¬ 
tator, and was very familiar with Rabbinical works. His Body 
of Divinity is a highly Calvinistic work, evincing considerable 
ability. 

23. Fuller, A. was born Feb. 6, 1754, at Wicken, and died at 
Kettering, May 7, 1815. 

His works, like those of Bunyan, are for the most part theologi¬ 
cal. The following, however, may be specified: 1. Letters on 

Systematic Divinity, i. 2. The Gospel its own Witness, ii. 3. 
The Gospel worthy of all Acceptation, n. 4. The Calvinistic 


16 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


and Socinian Systems compared, n. 5. Dialogues, etc., between 
Crispus and Gaius, n. 6. Conversations between Peter, James, 
and John, n. The writings of Fuller are remarkably clear, dis¬ 
criminating, and sound. 

24. Dagg, J. L. Manual of Theology and of Church Polity, a 
sound and useful work. The Second Part is especially valuable. 

25. Ridgely, Thos. was born in London about a. d. 1667, and 
died March 27, 1734. 

His chief work is entitled, A Body of Divinity, etc., and con¬ 
sists of Lectures on the Assembly’s Larger Catechism. It is care¬ 
fully written, and evinces much ability and piety. 

26. Dick, J. was born in Aberdeen, Oct. 10, 1764, and died Jan. 
25, 1833. 

His Theology is a work of considerable value. 

27. Chalmers, Tiios. was born in East Anstruther, a village of 
Fife, March 17, 1780, and died at Edinburgh, May 31, 1847. 

Of his works we specify — 1. Christian Revelation, n. 2. Insti¬ 
tutes of Theology, ii. This latter work gives the matured views 
of Chalmers on theology. 

28. Edwards, J. was born at East Windsor, Ct., Oct. 5, 1703, 
and died at Princeton, N. J., March 22, 1758. 

Of his numerous writings, we mention the following: 1. In¬ 

quiry into the Freedom of the Will. 2. The great doctrine of 
Original Sin defended. 3. The History of Redemption. 4. Nature 
of True Virtue. 5. Concerning Religious Affections. 6. Qualifica¬ 
tions for full Communion in the visible church. Edwards is a very 
powerful writer; acute, exhaustive, spiritual. 

29. Bellamy, Jos. was born at New Cheshire, Ct., in 1719, and 
died at Bethlehem, Ct., March 6, 1790. 

Of his works, the following deserve special notice: 1. True 

Religion Delineated. 2. The Wisdom of God in the Permission 
of Sin, (four sermons.) 3. Theron, Paulin us, and Aspasio, on 
Love, Faith, Assurance, etc. Bellamy was a powerful preacher, a 
vigorous writer, and a sound theologian. 

30. Hopkins, S. was born at Waterbury, Ct., Sept. 19,1721, and 
died in Newport, R. I., Dec. 20, 1803. 

His theological views are contained in a work entitled, “A 
System of Doctrines contained in Divine Revelation,” etc. He 
was a clear thinker and able writer, though not an attractive 
preacher. Hopkinsianism. 


INTRODUCTION. SECTION VII. 


17 


31. Woods, L. His theological works are distinguished for good 
sense, great caution for the most part, and perspicuity of style. 

32. Finney, C. G. Lectures on Systematic Theology; chiefly 
valuable for the view which they give of their author’s opinions. 
They are rationalistic, logical, dry. 

33. Taylor, N. W. 1. Lectures on Moral Government, n. 

2. Revealed Theology. These volumes give, of course, a defi¬ 
nite statement of Dr. Taylor’s system. They are ably though 
somewhat diffusely written. 

34. Breckinridge, R. J. Christianity Objectively Considered 
and Christianity Subjectively Considered, n. Old School; verbose, 
but not without vigor. 

35. Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology, a compact exhibi¬ 
tion of the Princeton theology. 

36. Baird, E. J. The Elohim Revealed in the Creation and 
Redemption of Man. 

37. Wesley, J. was born at Epworth, June 17, 1703, and died 
March 2, 1791. 

The following works deserve examination: 1. Predestination 
Calmly Considered. 2. Thoughts on Imputed Righteousness. 

3. What is an Arminian? 4. Serious Thoughts on the Per¬ 
severance of the Saints. 5. Plain Account of Christian Perfec¬ 
tion. 6. A Treatise on Baptism, n. 7. Doctrine of Original 
Sin, v. 

38. Watson. Theological Institutes. Thorough and candid. 

39. Nitzsch, C. T. System of Christian Doctrine. 

40. Hahn, A. Dogmatik. 

41. Ebrard. Biblical Dogmatik. 

42. Muller, J. On Sin. 

3 


18 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


PART FIRST. —BIBLIOLOGY. 


§ I. Preliminary Statements. 

§ II. Plan of this Argument. 

§ III. The N. Testament Records historically reliable. 

§ IV. Hence Jesus Christ infallible. 

§ Y. His Promise of the Holy Spirit to his Disciples. 

§ YI. The Fulfilment of this Promise. 

§ YII. The other Hew Testament Writers inspired or 
indorsed. 

§ VIII. The Old Testament Scriptures virtually God’s 
Word. 

§ IX. Nature and Extent of Inspiration. 

§ I. Preliminary Statements. 

This part of our Course treats of the Bible, — the principal 
source of Christian knowledge. We say the principal source, 
because the peculiar doctrines of Christianity are drawn by us 
from this Book, and stand or fall with its divine character. Hence, 
to justify our belief of these doctrines, we must establish the 
following proposition, viz: that the Bible is virtually the Word 
of God , or, in other language, that the Scriptures of the Old and 
New Testaments were written by men divinely inspired. 

Before adducing the evidence in support of this proposition, we 
shall endeavor to show that the making of such a revelation, on 
the part of God, cannot fairly be regarded as improbable per se. 
This is sufficiently manifest from the following considerations: — 

1. Men are predisposed to believe in revelations from God. 
They naturally presume that a Creator of moral beings will instruct 
them; instruct them more directly and fully than by fixed laws. 
The history of false religions is replete with evidence of this fact. 
But a constitutional tendency of the human mind points, with 
more or less authority, to some answering reality in the providence 
of God. And this tendency appears to be constitutional; for it 
exists in the best as well as in the worst of mankind. 



BIBLIOLOGY. 


19 


2. Thoughtful men feel their need of a special revelation. With¬ 
out it their spiritual nature seems to be neglected in comparison 
with the body. Their appetites and senses may be fully gratified 
by the products of divine skill in the world, but their souls do not 
find so rich supplies. Hence, they experience a sense of spiritual 
need, — a longing for clearer light. 

3. Men need such a revelation in order to accomplish the design 
of their moral nature. This is true whether they feel it or not. 
The history of pagan nations bears witness to this need, and 
proves the total insufficiency of the light of nature to meet the 
exigencies of their condition. They are destined to utter and 
irrecoverable ruin, unless God interpose for their instruction and 
recovery. If there be a presumption that God is merciful , there 
is a presumption that he will make a special disclosure of his 
mind. 

We do not place the highest confidence in this argument, yet we 
are unprepared to reject it wholly, with Chalmers. “ For ourselves,’’ 
he says, “ we do not feel the strength of this argument, and can 
therefore have little or no value for it.” i. p. 15. 

Conclusion. We hold, therefore, that, all things considered, 
there is no a priori improbability in the opinion that God has 
revealed his will to men more fully than this is done by the light 
of nature. 

But such a revelation must be made in one of two ways; either, 
1, by a direct communication to each individual of our race, or, 2, 
by a communication publicly and appropriately authenticated for 
the use of all. We are aware of no solid objection to the latter 
method, but rather of many things in its favor. Hence, we 
remark: — 

a. Every consideration which shows that the making of a reve¬ 
lation by God cannot fairly be regarded as improbable, goes also 
to show that attesting miracles, as the appropriate evidence of 
such a revelation, are not improbable. 

b. By miracles, we mean events which deviate from the known 
laws of nature, and which can only be explained by referring them 
to the agency of God. 

c. From the supernatural character of these events, it by no 
means follows that they are brought to pass irregularly or arbitra¬ 
rily. In their production, natural laws are subordinated to moral 
ones. The government of God is a “ wheel within a wheel,” and 
the physical world is subordinate to the moral. 


20 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


§ II. Plan of' the following Argument. 

We are now to justify, by suitable evidence of its truth, the 
proposition That the Bible is virtually tjie Word of God , or , that 
it was written by men divinely inspired. And, by saying it is vir¬ 
tually God’s Word, we mean to affirm that it has the same authority 
as if it were a book written by him; that it has been indorsed by 
him as his own message to mankind. In proving this, we shall 
establish the following positions: — 

1. That the several books of the Hew Testament are worthy of 
entire confidence as historical records. 

2. That Jesus Christ, according to proofs which these records 
afford, was perfectly infallible. 

3. That he promised his apostles the Holy Spirit to aid them in 
their work, and especially to lead them into all Christian truth. 

4. That this promise was fulfilled on and after the day of Pen¬ 
tecost, and consequently their teachings, whether oral or written, 
were virtually God’s Word. 

5. That the other writers of the New Testament were probably 
inspired, and if not, their narratives or letters were sanctioned as 
true by the apostles. 

6. That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were declared by 
Christ and his apostles to be the Word of God. 

R. a. If these statements can be satisfactorily maintained, we 
have a direct and logical argument for our chief proposition,— an 
argument which can be easily understood, and which can never be 
overthrown. 

R. b. We prefer, therefore, to connect with the several positions 
of this argument most of the facts which bear upon the Scriptures, 
and which are often set forth as independent proofs of their 
inspiration. 

R. c. At certain points in this argument, we shall notice con¬ 
firmatory evidences, not strictly necessary to the certainty of our 
conclusion. 

R. d. The following works may be named as worthy of exami¬ 
nation during this part of our course, viz: — 

Lardner, Hath. Credibility of the Gospel History. 

Butler, Jos. Analogy of Religion, etc. Part n. 

Paley, Wm. Horae Paulinae, and Evidence of Christianity. 

Leslie, Short Way with the Deist. 

Erskine, Internal Evidence of Christianity. 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


21 


Keith, On Prophecy and its Fulfilment. 

West, G. On the Resurrection of Christ. 

Lyttleton, L. On the Conversion of the Apostle Paul. 

Alexander, A. On the Canon. 

Wardlaw, On Miracles. 

Blunt, Scriptural Coincidences. 

Hopkins, Lowell Lectures. 

Young, J. The Christ of History. 

Alexander, W. L. Christ and Christianity. 

Lee, Inspiration of the Scriptures. 

Henderson, Inspiration of the Scriptures. 

Woods, L. On the Inspiration of the Scriptures. 

Lewis, T. The Divine Human in the Scriptures. 

Rogers, H. Eclipse of Faith, and Essays. 

Rogers, H. Defence of Eclipse of Faith. 

Macnaught, J. The Doctrine of Inspiration. 

Morell, J. D. Philosophy of Religion. 

Coleridge, Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit. 

Hengstenberg, E. On the Pentateuch. 

Hengstenberg, E. Egypt and the Books of Moses. 

Steudel, J. C. F. On the Inspiration of the Apostles. 

§ III. The New Testament Records historically 
reliable. 

/ 

The purpose of this Section is to show that the several books of 
the New Testament are worthy of entire confidence as historical 
records. 

This general position may be established by showing — 

1. That the several books of the New Testament were written 
before a. d. 100. 

2. That they were written by apostles, or the associates of 
apostles. 

3. That these men were both competent and upright, and 
worthy of all confidence. 

The evidence for these statements should be found in the 
Biblical Department; in the various Introductions to the New 
Testament, as those of Hug, Davidson, and Guericke; in the 
works on Evidences, as those of Lardner, Paley, Alexander, 
Olshausen, and Tholuck; and in the best commentaries on the 
New Testament writings. 


22 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


This evidence has been strenuously assailed by the school of 
Baur, C. F. The destructive criticism of Baur rests on the follow¬ 
ing assumptions: 1. That miracles and revelations, as explained 

by evangelical men, are absurd and incredible. 2. That religious 
opinions are always the growth of circumstances and previous 
culture. 3. That the chronology of the New Testament writings 
is determined by the times when certain heresies arose and flour¬ 
ished. 4. That the chronology of these heresies is evident from 
such writings as the Clementina, etc. • 

R. The results of this negative criticism are thus described by 
H. Merz, formerly a student at Tubingen: “I wished to seize 
Christ with one hand, and not let go of Hegel with the other. 
But from whence could one obtain a lifelike, historical image of 
Christ, after it had, during four years, been critically analyzed 
(dissolved) for us? Matthew, Mark, Luke? legendary poetry! 
John ? didactic poetry! The Acts of the Apostles ? Ecclesiastico- 
political romance! Epistle to the Romans? diplomatic paper 
between Jewish and Gentile Christianity! the last two chapters 
spurious ! Epistle to the Ephesians ? spurious ! To the Philip- 
pians? spurious! To the Colossians? spurious! To the Thes- 
salonians? the second, at least, spurious! To Timothy, Titus, 
Philemon ? all spurious! First and Second of Peter ? spurious ! 
Epistles of John? spurious, if the Revelation is genuine! To 
the Hebrews? spurious! The Revelation of John? genuine! 
genuinely Jewish! genuinely Ebionitic! genuinely Evangelical! 
This was our biblical theology in Tubingen. This was our food 
for spirit and heart in the hospitable house of speculative criticism.” 

In opposition to the assaults of this destructive School, the argu¬ 
ments of Neander, Schaff, Thiersch, Lutterbeck, Guericke, Kurtz, 
Alexander, and many others, may profitably be examined. After 
the severest scrutiny the evidence will be found ample and con¬ 
clusive as to nearly all the New Testament writings. And, were 
those of a slightly doubtful origin set aside, the theological sys¬ 
tem would itself remain unchanged. We do not, however, believe 
that any book of the New Testament is unworthy of its place 
in the Canon. Cf. Tregelles, On the New Testament Historical 
Evidence. 

We add a brief synopsis of reasons in support of — (c) That 
the New Testament writers were competent and upright, and per¬ 
fectly reliable. 1. Competent , for (a) They were men of good 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


23 


sense, and, at least, average intelligence. This is evident beyond 
dispute from their writings; for these writings are greatly superior 
in freshness, force of thought, and perspicuity of style, to any 
similar productions of that age. (b) They were on the spot, living 
at the time, and in the country, when and where the events whicq 
they relate took place. This we assume to have been already 
proved. And (c) The events which they narrate were such as 
could be tested fairly by some of their senses. E. g. The turning 
of water into wine, the death and resurrection of Lazarus, the 
feeding of the multitudes, the piece of money in the fish, etc. And if 
this is true of the miracles, much more is it true of the other events. 

2. Upright , for (a) Their writings bear evidence of this on 
every page; {b) They had no prospect of advantage from 
their testimony in this world; (c) Nor had they in the world to 
come, if it was false. 

Says Dryden: — 

“ Whence, but from heaven, could men, unskilled in arts, 

In different ages born, in different parts, 

Weave such agreeing truths? or how, or why, 

Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie ? 

Unasked their pains; ungrateful their advice ; 

Starving their gains; and martyrdom their price.” 

All this, except the second line, applies most fully to the 
apostles and their associates. 

R. a. Says Greenleaf on Evidence, i. 138 : “It is found indis¬ 
pensable, as a test of truth, and to the proper administration of 
justice, that every living witness should, if possible, be subjected 
to the ordeal of a cross-examination, that it may appear — 1, what 
were his powers of perception; 2, his opportunities for observation ; 
3, his attentiveness in observing; 4, the strength of his recollec¬ 
tion ; and 5, his disposition to speak the truth.” 

R. b. We cannot cross-examine the New Testament writers, 
as living witnesses; but we may do what is equivalent to this with 
their testimony. Thus: — 

1. Their testimony is confirmed by our knowledge from other 
sources. 

a. Of the civil and religious officers, parties, and events among 
the Jews at that time. 

b. Of the topography, inhabitants, and productions of Palestine. 

c. Of the civil and religious condition of the Roman world, its 
officers, provinces, etc. at that time. 


24 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


2. Their testimony is confirmed by the remarkable harmony in 
diversity which it exhibits. E. g. 

a. In the history of Christ. For we must either suppose — 1. 
That there was such a person as Jesus Christ, whose history the 
gospels contain; and then we have no difficulty whatever in 
accounting for the harmony in diversity spoken of; for we have 
four portraits, as it were, of the same original, but taken by differ¬ 
ent artists; or 2. That the character and life of Christ are ideal, 
originated by one or more of the evangelists; and then, if we say 
by one, we fail to account for the diversity noticed, but if by more 
than one, we are unable to account for the unity. Indeed, no Jew 
of that age could have originated so unique and wonderful a char¬ 
acter as the history of Christ presents. 

SaysNeander: “If we contemplate the appearance of Christ, 
we behold an unfathomable many-sidedness and an inexhaustible 
depth. No one is able to comprehend his whole life in its entire¬ 
ness : each one apprehends it partially, — one on this side, and 
another on that.” 

b. In the history of Paul. The accounts of his conversion, 
labors, sufferings, given by Luke, and by himself respectively, 
exhibit the same harmony in diversity. This is clearly and con¬ 
clusively shown by Paley in the Horse Paulinae. 

3. Their testimony is also confirmed by the style of their 
narratives. 

a. By the minuteness of detail which characterizes them. They 
are particular, circumstantial, lifelike, giving names of persons and 
places, etc. 

b. By the positiveness of statement which characterizes them. 
They keep to the facts, like men under oath, making almost no 
inferences or conjectures. 

c. By the frankness of speech which characterizes them. 
Nothing seems to be kept back, because it was of doubtful wis¬ 
dom. The hard sayings of Christ, the apparent contradictions of 
his language, the sins and errors of his disciples, all appear without 
preface or apology. 

d. By the peculiar reserve which characterizes them. They 
never eulogize the character of Christ, and very rarely his teach¬ 
ing. They scarcely allude to many questions which awaken the 
utmost curiosity in men addicted to religious speculation. “In its 
grand, childlike, and holy simplicity, the narrative passes by such 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


25 


questions of the intellect, just as a child moves among the riddles 
of nature and of life, as if they existed not” (Kurtz, xliv.) 

Says Prof. Lee: “No expression of human sympathy accom¬ 
panies the story of the agony in the garden; the awful scenes 
before Pilate; the horrors of the cross! No burst of emotion 
attends their Master’s body to the grave, or welcomes his resur¬ 
rection ; and yet, who has not felt how this treatment of their 
theme but adds to its pathos and its grandeur ? ” P. 229, note 5. 

§ IV. Jesus Christ infallible. 

We are, in the next place, to justify our second position, viz : 
That, according to proofs which the New Testament records afford, 
Jesus Christ was perfectly infallible. And let it be remembered 
that we can expect only moral evidence in this matter; for we are 
dealing with history and fact; demonstration is therefore impossi¬ 
ble. Says Greenleaf, p. 496: “ The subordinate rules of evidence 
are silenced by the most transcendent and universal rule, that, in 
all cases, that evidence is good, than which the nature of the sub¬ 
ject presumes none better to be attainable.” 

We appeal, then, to the following facts in support of our second 
position: — 

i. That Jesus Christ claimed infallibility as a teacher. 

a. By jirofessing to have direct knowledge of heavenly things. 
John 3: 11-13; 8: 38. 

b. By professing to know the Father directly, and to reveal him. 
Matt. 11: 27 ; John 7 : 28, 29; 8 : 55; 6: 46; 10 : 15; 17 : 25, 26. 

c. By professing to be one with the Father. John 10: 30, 38 ; 
17: 10, 22. 

d. By declaring his words to be the Father’s. John 7 : 16; 8 : 
28; 12: 49; 14: 10, 24; 17: 8. 

e. By asserting his words to be immutably true. Mark 13 : 31; 
Luke 21: 33 ; John 14 : 6. 

f By making salvation depend on our treatment of his words. 
Mark 8: 38; Luke 9 : 26; John 12: 47, 48; 14 : 23 ; 15 : 7. 

g. By the authority with which he taught. Matt. 7 : 29; John 
7 : 46/ 

This, then, was the claim of Christ; and to justify our assent to 
this claim we appeal: — 

ii. To the fact that his immediate disciples were convinced of its 
rightfulness: since, 

4 


26 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


a. They ascribe to him unlimited knowledge. Matt. 9:4; Mark 
2: 8; John 2: 24, 25; Acts 1: 24; Rev. 2: 23; John 16: 30; 
21: 17; 6: 64; 18: 4. 

b. They declare him to be full of truth, and to be the source of 
truth. John 1: 14, 17, and the like. 

c. They preach his doctrine as pre-eminently the truth. 2 Cor. 

4: 2, sq.; Gal. 2: 5; Eph. 4: 21; 2 Tim. 2 : 15. 

m. To the fact of his moral excellence / his humility, and sin¬ 

lessness. 

1. As to his humility , notice — 

a. His own claims. Matt. 11: 29; 20: 28; 26: 42; John 5: 
30; 6: 38; 4: 34. 

b. His disciples’ testimony. 1 Peter 2: 23 ; Romans 15:3; 
Phil. 2: 8. 

c. The total impression made by the record of his life. 

2. As to his sinlessness , notice also — 

a. His own claims. John 7: 18; 8: 46; 8: 29; 15: 10. 

b. His disciples’ testimony, 1. Direct. 2 Cor. 5: 21; Heb. 4 : 15 ; 

7: 26 ; 1 Peter 2 : 22; 1 John 2 : 29 ; 3 : 7 ; Acts 3 : 14; 7 : 52 ; 

22: 14; and 2. Indirect. 1 Cor. 1:2; John 5 : 23; and the like. 

c. The total impression made by the record of his life. 

R. a. The testimony of Judas, Pilate, his wife, and other ene¬ 
mies of Jesus, may also be added at this point. 

R. b. The Evangelists do not seem to have chosen their materials 
for the purpose of proving Christ’s moral perfection. See Matt. 
19: 17; 8: 28-34; 21: 12,13; Mark 11: 12-14; Luke 24: 28. 
See also Ulmann’s Sinlessness of Christ, 
iv. To the character of his doctrines . 

These doctrines are pre-eminent:— 

a. For their simplicity. 

b. For their self-consistency. 

c. For their sublimity. 

d. For their moral purity. 

e. For their comprehensiveness. 

f. For their practicalness. 

g. For their good influence. 

R. Here it will be well to examine Erskine on Internal Evi¬ 
dence, Harris on the Demands of Infidelity, satisfied by Christi¬ 
anity, ^Bibliotheca /Sacra , v. xiii. p. 272, sq ., and Dr. Peabody’s 
Address at Brown University. 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


27 


Says Dr. Peabody: “Now, suppose a being who could occupy 
with reference to the entire spiritual family, the same position 
which our mathematician holds as to the material creation. Let such 
a being ignore all systems; let him assume simply the one idea ot 
right, the being of God, and the existence of created moral 
agents; and let him on this basis construct a moral system in 
detail, — a system which shall forever maintain harmony between 
God and his intelligent children, as mathematical laws maintain 
harmony between God and his clustering worlds, — the system 
could not but correspond even to the minutest precept, prohibition, 
and sanction, with the morality of the gospel. To this Christ-given, 
ethical compend, who can add ? Who can take from it ? What 
imaginable case of obligation does it not meet ? In what imagin¬ 
able case is departure from it safe ? We can conceive of no other 
principles than those which it embodies. Nor is it law for me 
alone; it must be law wherever being is. Range in thought from 
planet to planet, from star to star; imagine the forms and aspects 
of life in them as various as must be the combinations of their ele¬ 
ments, or the nightly panorama in them several firmaments,— still 
you can imagine no other law; you can conceive of no possible 
condition of being in which the Sermon on the Mount would not 
have the same validity which it has with us. Nor as you look into 
the depths of eternity, can you conceive of any stage or degree of 
attainment in which the compend of duty shall not be sole and 
sufficient law for angels and just men made perfect. It is, in this 
connection, worthy of emphatic statement, that what we call the 
moral progress of the ages has been simply their retrogression toward 
the evangelic standard. In government, in commerce, in political 
economy, in social organization, numerous principles, at first the 
subjects of fierce controversy, have overcome opposition, have out¬ 
lived dissent, and are now taught and received as axioms, as tru¬ 
isms. But of these principles, there is not one which we can trace 
to human parentage, — not one which did not in its seedling form 
drop from the divine bps that spake in Judea, and take shape under 
the pens of the evangelists.” 

§ V. To the Fulfilment of Predictions made by him. 

Take for example his predictions — 

a. As to his own death. 

b. As to his disciples’ conduct. 


28 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


r. As to the destruction of Jerusalem. 

The fulfilment of these is enough to prove the truth of all his 
prophecies. 

§ VI. To the Miracles wrought by him. 

We cannot reasonably distrust the record of these miracles with¬ 
out distrusting the entire history of Christ. For these miracles 
are a prominent and harmonious feature of his life. “ It is remark¬ 
able,” says Prof. Harris (Bib. Sac. xiii. 279), “that, however 
incredible the scriptural miracles would seem in any other book, 
we are never conscious of surprise, never regard them as incredi¬ 
ble, incongruous, or unexpected, when we read of them in the 
Bible,” etc. Not a few of them were wrought in the presence of 
many witnesses, were of such a character as made collusion impos¬ 
sible, were appealed to by him in support of his authority, and 
were made the basis and occasion of his teaching; and nearly all 
of them were wrought in his own name, at his own pleasure, and 
for a worthy end. 

Yet so much has been said against the appeal to miracles, in 
evidence of Christ’s character,— so often has the possibility of them, 
or the possibility of proving them, been denied, that we must dwell 
a little on this matter. And to notice the objections in their chro¬ 
nological order, we begin with that of Hume. He denied the pos¬ 
sibility of establishing the fact of a miracle by human testimony. 
His argument rested on the following philosophical principles, 
viz: — 

1. A cause, strictly defined, is simply a regular antecedent. 

2. A law of nature is but a uniform succession of certain events. 

8. Our belief in the laws of nature springs from our personal 

experience. 

4. Our belief in testimony springs from the same source. 

Hume did not pretend to show that it would be unworthy of 
God to work a miracle, or unnatural for men to expect it of him, 
or unreasonable for them to believe in one on the evidence of their 
senses; but only that no amount of testimony could justify them in 
holding such a belief. Thus — 

1. Our belief in the laws of nature rests on a “ uniform,” a “firm 
and unalterable experience.” 

2. Our belief in testimony can never rest on a more than uni¬ 
form experience; it actually rests on a variable and less reliable 


one. 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


29 


3. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, an event “ con¬ 
trary to uniform experience, when the circumstances are the same.” 
“ That a dead man should come to life is a miracle, because that 
has never been observed in any age or country .” 

4. Hence, the best conceivable testimony in favor of miracles 
can merely justify doubt, suspense. “To establish a miracle, 
the testimony must be such that its falsehood would be more 
miraculous (?) than the fact which it asserts.” 

5. Such testimony may be supposed in favor of a miracle discon¬ 
nected with religion (n, 128). But should the alleged “miracle be 
ascribed to any new system of religion, this very circumstance 
would be sufficient to make all men of sense reject it without fur¬ 
ther examination.” 

This is Hume’s argument in brief. He appears to have enter¬ 
tained high notions of its force and of its influence on the minds 
of men. But we hesitate not to deny its validity. 

a. Because it ignores the moral character and government of 

God. 

b. Because it confounds personal and universal experience. 

c. Because it puts all kinds of testimony together as liable to 
deceive. 

d. Because by an obvious fallacy of definition it assumes the 
very point to be proved. 

e. Because it is virtually given up as a piece of sophistry by 
himself. 

We pass now to the second objection, viz: That miracles are 
absurd and incredible per se. Says Feuerbach (Essence of Chris¬ 
tianity, p. 175), “A circle in (the form of) a straight line is the 
mathematical symbol of miracle. To reason, miracle is absurd, 
inconceivable; as inconceivable as wooden iron, or a circle without 
a periphery. Before it is discussed whether a miracle can happen, 
let it be shown that miracle, i. e. the inconceivable is conceivable.” 
Strauss takes the same position. “Thou boldest the gospel as it 
stands,” says Goethe, “ to be divinest truth ; but an audible voice 
from heaven could not convince me that water burns, and I rather 
hold this to be blasphemy against the great God and his revelation 
in nature.” 

To this we simply reply, that creation is inconceivable, pure 
spirit is inconceivable, matter itself is inconceivable, in just the 
same sense as a miracle is inconceivable. But the reality of all 
these is conceded by every sound mind. 


30 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


The objection, however, often takes a more plausible form. It 
is urged, 1. That our reason requires us to suppose a natural cause 
for every phenomenon. This we must deny, with every man who 
believes in a personal Creator. 2. That science has traced many 
alleged miracles to natural causes, and will in due time all the rest. 
In reply to this, we plead ignorance of any such exploits of science 
in accounting for New Testament miracles. 3. That we need a 
perfect knowledge of nature to warrant us in denying that any 
event flows from natural causes. This is plausible, but erroneous. 
It is only necessary for us to know the laws of nature which bear 
on the case in hand. 4. Hence, God would never attempt to 
authenticate instruction by supernatural grounds, the validity of 
which we can never establish. This conclusion loses its value if 
our replies to the preceding arguments are good. 

We may pass unnoticed other forms of the objections to mira¬ 
cles, and close this part of our argument by quoting a few state¬ 
ments on the a priori improbability of miracles. The judgment 
of a heathen may be seen in the well-known language of 
Horace: — 

“ Nec deus intersit, nisi dignus vindice nodus 
Incidecit.” 

Paley says, “ that miracles are no more improbable than these 
two propositions, 1, that a future state of existence should be 
destined by God for his human creation; and, 2, that, being so 
destined, he should acquaint them with it.” 

Says Mill: “ The only antecedent improbability which can be 
ascribed to the miracle, is the improbability that God would inter¬ 
fere with the regular course of events to perform it.” 

Says Prof. Harris {Bib. Sac. xiii. 279) : “It is remarkable that, 
however incredible the Scripture miracles would seem in any other 
book, we are never conscious of surprise, never regard them as 
incredible, incongruous, or unexpected, when we read of them in the 
Bible. The central thought that this is the record of God’s feel¬ 
ings and acts in saving men, is so vast, the truths opened to us are 
so stupendous, the scenes disclosed so sublime, every step in the 
progressing story is so manifestly the step of the Almighty, that 
these great miracles harmonize with the grandeur of the whole 
revelation; they seem to us no more surprising or incredible, than 
the rainbow with which God adorns the retiring storm, or the stars 
with which he nightly gems the sky.” «In the Bible, on the other 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


31 


hand,” remarks Prof. Lewis, “even the supernatural — we may say 
it without a paradox — is most natural. It is in such true keep¬ 
ing with the times, with the events and doctrines it attests, with 
all the surrounding historical circumstances as they are narrated, 
that we almost lose the feeling of the supernatural in the admir¬ 
able harmony and consistency of the ideas and scenes presented. 
It seems to be just what might have been expected; it would be 
strange that it should be otherwise; the marvellous here is the 
presumption, the extraordinary becomes the easy of belief. The 
supernatural assumes the familiar appearance of the natural, and 
God’s coming down to us, and speaking to us, seem less incredible 
than the far-off silence which, though so unbroken for our sense, 
is so perplexing and unaccountable to our reason.” Divine hitman 
in the Scriptures , p. 149. 

Conclusion. In view of the facts which we have thus drawn 
from trustworthy records of Christ’s life, we must pronounce him 
infallible, and receive all his words as true. For these facts cannot 
be reconciled with the hypothesis that he was either a deceiver or 
self-deceived. They are intelligible and credible only on the sup¬ 
position that he was, what he claimed to be, a humble , holy, in¬ 
fallible being. 

§ V. Christ’s Promise of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. 

We are to verify in this section our third position, viz: “ That 
Christ promised his apostles the Holy Spirit to aid them in their 
work, and especially to lead them into all Christian truth.” And 
we find on examination that he promised the Spirit — 

1. To abide with them as a permanent helper. John 14: 16. 
See Hards Mission of the Comforter , note K. 

2. To give them wisdom and utterance in times of special dan¬ 
ger. Matt. 10: 19, 20 ; Luke 12 : 11, 12. 

3. To recall and explain to their minds his own words. John 
14: 26. 

4. To reveal to them future events. John 16 : 13. 

5. To teach them the whole truth, i. e. the entire doctrine of 
Christ. John 14 : 26 ; ( Of 15: 26 ; 16 : 13; Acts 1: 5, 8.) 

In confirmation of the view we take of these premises, we find 
also — 

a. That Christ commissioned his disciples to perform a work 


32 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


which required for its proper execution the aid of such a helper. 
John 17: 18 ; 20 : 21; Matt. 28: 19, 20 ; Mark 16 : 15. 

b. That he gave them a place and authority in his kingdom, 
which presupposed the presence of such a helper. Matt. 16: 
18-20; (Cf. Eph. 2: 20; Rev. 21: 14;) Matt. 18: 18; John 20: 
23 ; (Cf. also Luke 10 : 16.) 

R. a. If the passages cited above refer in their full strength to 
the apostles, and to them only, our third position is clearly estab¬ 
lished. And this reference seems to us to be demanded by their 
language. For, 1, they call the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth, as 
though it were his special work to reveal truth. 2. They declare 
in so many words that he was to reveal new truths, — things which 
the apostles were not yet able to bear. And, 3, they speak of him 
explicitly as revealing things to come. Row these statements do 
not point to the ordinary sanctifying work of the Spirit, but to a 
special agency limited to the time of the apostles. For since their 
day no additions have been made to the sum of revealed truth. 

R. b. While these promises of Christ are not immediately appli¬ 
cable to Christians generally, they may expect the full benefit of 
them mediately. They have no promise of the Spirit to reveal 
to them new truth, but they may have his aid in preparing their 
hearts to perceive and appropriate truth already revealed. Their 
advantages are not, therefore, necessarily inferior to those of the 
apostles. 

R. c. Christ’s promise, it may now be said, was made to the 
eleven disciples, and cannot therefore be made a proof of Paul’s 
inspiration. To this inference we reply: The promise was evi¬ 
dently made to the apostles as men to be intrusted with a special 
work, that of teaching, in place of Christ, his religion, and organ¬ 
izing his church. Their number was increased by the accession of 
Paul, who was called by Christ himself to be an apostle, and was 
therefore entitled to expect the fulfilment of this promise in his 
own case. As evidence of his call to the office of an apostle may 
be urged — 

1. His own claim. Romans 1 : 1; 1 Cor. 1: 1; 9: 1; 2 Cor. 
1: 1; 11: 5 ; Gal. 1 : 1 ; ( Cf. Acts 26: 16-18.) 

2. Miracles by him. Acts 14: 3; 19: 11, 12; 20: 9-12; 28: 
3-6 ; 2 Cor. 12 : 12. 

3. Admission of other apostles. 2 Peter 3 : 15, 16; 1 Peter 1 : 
12; 5: 12; Gal. 2: 6-9; (Cf. Storr and Flatt, B. i. § 10, and 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


33 


Olshausen’s Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. See also Lord 
Lyttleton on the Conversion of St. Paul.) 


§ YI. The Fulfilment of this Promise. 

In proof of proposition four, that this promise was fulfilled on 
and after the day of Pentecost, etc. we may appeal — 

1. To the testimony of Luke. Acts 2: 4; 4: 8,31; 5: 3, 4; 
8: 17. 

2. To the testimony of Peter. Acts 2 : 17, sq. 38 ; 10 : 44-47; 
11: 15; 15: 8. 

3. To the testimony of John. Rev. 1: 1, sq. 

4. To the testimony of Paul. Gal. 1: 1, 11, 12, etc. 

5. To the testimony of all the apostles. Acts 15 : 28. 

§ VII. The other New Testament Writers inspired 

AND INDORSED. 

In support of proposition five, “That the other New Testament 
writers were probably inspired, and unquestionably, if not, their 
narratives and letters were sanctioned as true by the apostles,” 
we say, 1. That these writers were probably inspired, and for the 
following reasons: — 

a. Many associates of the apostles seem to have been inspired. 
Acts 2 : 17, 18; 11 : 27, 28; 21: 9 ; 1 Cor. 11 : 4; 14 : 24-^4. 

b. Both Mark and Luke were associated in Christian labor for 

a long time with the apostles. 1. Mark, Acts 12 : 12, 25; 13 : 5, 
13 ; 15 : 37, 39; Col. 4 : 10 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 11; Phile. 24; 1 Peter 
5:13. 2. Luke, Acts 16:10; 20:5; 21:17; 24:22; 27:1- 

28 : 16. See also Introduction to Hackett’s Acts. 

R. In view of these two facts, we deem it very probable that 
both Mark and Luke were inspired. But if they were not, then 
we say — 1. That their narratives and letters must have been 
indorsed by the apostles. For as to Mark’s gospel — 

1. It was believed by the primitive church that Mark was for 
some time the interpreter or amanuensis of Peter, and that his 
gospel was based on the apostle’s teaching, if not sanctioned 
directly by him. There is no reason to doubt the substantial 
truth of this early and wide-spread tradition. 

5 


34 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


2. It is supposed by the best interpreters that Mark was with 
Peter in Babylon (1 Peter 5 : 13), being the spiritual son, as well 
as the assistant of the apostle. His connection with Paul and 
Barnabas is by no means inconsistent with such a view. 

3. The gospel according to Mark appears to have been written 
before the destruction of Jerusalem. See Davidson, Guericke, 
Meyer, Alford. 

4. The Apostle John survived that event twenty years. This 
gospel could hardly have been circulated so long without or 
against the sanction of John. A uniform tradition asserts the 
immediate and unquestioned use of this gospel. 

And again, as to Luke’s gospel — 

1. It was held by the primitive church to have been sanctioned 
by Paul. (Cf. 1 Tim. 5 : 18, and Luke 10 : 7.) 

2. This is probable from his connection with that apostle. 

3. The Acts, too, were probably written by him while with 
Paul. 

4. Both these were doubtless in circulation twenty years before 
the death of John; and must therefore have been approved 
by him. 

R. a. The Epistle of James was probably written by James, 
the son of Alpheus, — one of the twelve. (Cf. Wiesler St. u. 
Kr. 1842, i. 71; Guericke, 33, sq .; Davidson, hi. 342.; Hertzog, 
vi. 406, sq.) If not, it was written by a kinsman of Christ, who 
was pastor of the church at Jerusalem, and possessed apostolic 
influence. In this case his epistle found its way into the Canon 
by force of such reasons as led to the reception of Mark and 
Luke. 

R. b. The Epistle to the Hebrews was probably written by 
the direction and under the eye of Paul; whether by Luke, or by 
some one else, we cannot tell; and was sent to those addressed as 
an epistle from that apostle. 

Result. It has now been shown that Christ was infallible, that 
he promised his apostles the Holy Spirit to aid them in their work, 
and especially to lead them into the whole truth, and that, after 
this divine Helper had taken up his abode in their hearts, they 
either wrote or sanctioned the New Testament Scriptures. Hence, 
we say, these Scriptures are virtually GocVs Word. 

But several objections may be raised to this result; we notice 
the more prominent ones. 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


35 


1. The knowledge of truth does not always prevent the utterance 
of falsehood. Hence, the apostles may have sometimes disguised 
or distorted the doctrine of Christ under the influence of personal 
ambition or fear. 

Reply. This objection loses its force when we reflect — 

1. That the general tenor of the apostles’ conduct, and the 
uniform character of their teaching, exclude the hypothesis of 
deliberate falsehood. 

2. That the Holy Spirit was given to the apostles for the very 
purpose of making them reliable teachers of the truth, — a fact 
sufficiently evident from the passages adduced in Section V. 

3. That he would not have continued with them while teaching 
falsehood. This is self-evident. Hence, the promise of Christ 
implied a prevenient and controlling influence of the Holy Spirit 
over the apostles while engaged in their official work. 

But, however plausible these replies may be, they are shown, it 
is said, to be futile, by the dissimulation of Peter at Antioch. 
We think not, and offer the following remarks on that sad 
event:— 

1. Peter was so far overcome, by persuasion or intimidation, 
as to avoid for a time acting out in conduct his known principles. 
And this course was obviously liable to be construed as a tacit 
renunciation of those principles. 

2. When reminded of his error and its tendency, he appears to 
have rectified his conduct at once, and from that time forward to 
have made his action coincide with his teaching. We do not 
claim, however, that the unofficial action of the apostles was 
always in perfect harmony with their deliberate teaching. Says 
Augustine: “I do not now inquire how he acted; I seek what 
he has written.” Says Lee: “ The promised impartation of the 
Holy Spirit to the apostles had not the object of making them 
morally perfect, but simply that of raising them in their teaching 
to be infallible organs of the truth.” Page 223. 

3. A remedy for the evil which might have sprung from Peter’s 
inconstancy was provided by Christ in the jDresence and fidelity of 
Paul. Says Lee: “ The only supposition on which the authen¬ 
ticity of Scripture could be affected by such facts as the error of 
St. Peter, would be if that error had been inserted as truth. Its 
exposure, on the other hand, proves the purity of the record; 
while it also shows how God has ever provided that his inspired 


36 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Word should not suffer through the error of an individual; but 
that, if the occasion required, a corrective should be supplied 
through the instrumentality of others.” Page 223. 

On the whole, the story of this sad event affords no ground for 
a presumption that the Holy Spirit suffered any one of the apostles 
to lay down as Christian truth, in their teaching or their organ¬ 
izing of churches, anything beyond or against the will of Christ. 

But we pass to another objection: 2. The apostles and their 
associates occasionally used inaccurate or rash language. Hence, 
their teaching cannot be received as the infallible Word of God.” 
See e. g. Luke 2:2; Acts 7:6; 23 : 5. 

Reply. This objection will disappear before a correct view of 
history, biblical and secular. For — 

1. The words of Luke 2 : 2, need not be found in conflict with 
any known facts of history. See an article by Tholuck in vol. i. 
Bib. Sac, and Appendix of Fairbairn’s Her. Manual. Ac¬ 
cording to the latter, A. W. Zumpt, in an able work on Roman 
Antiquities, has shown that Cyrenius was president of Syria at the 
time of Christ’s birth. Zumpt’s investigation seems to have been 
undertaken and prosecuted in a purely historical and scientific 
spirit. 

2. The language of Stephen, in Acts 7:6, is satisfactorily ex¬ 
plained by Hackett, Alexander, and other commentators. 

3. The language of Paul, in Acts 23:5, is more difficult. 
Neander admits that Paul “corrected himself.” “ The very turn 
of expression,” he remarks, “ shows us that Paul, in his momentary 
embarrassment, and regretting his intemperate language, only 
sought to make an excuse, and the words, as the bystanders would 
be aware, are not to be taken too stringently.” That is to say, Paul 
told a lie to apologize for a sin, — a view which we reject as a libel 
on the apostle. Prof. Hackett says: “ Paul admits that he had 
been thrown off his guard,— had spoken rashly,”— and interprets 
the language, “ I did not know? by adding, “ at the moment, i. e. 
did not consider.” To justify the sense thus given to tfdsiv, 
reference is made to Eph. 6: 8, and Col. 3:24; but we think 
improperly. In both passages the word may have its usual signifi¬ 
cation. If, however, this interpretation be correct, we have only 
to say that Paul erred and sinned similarly with Peter, but the 
grace of God proved a speedy corrective. But Alexander takes a 
different view. Translating “I knew not that he is the high priest? 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


37 


he says: .“The most satisfactory solution is, that Paul means to 
deny that Ananias was in any such sense high priest as to make 
him a violator of the law in Exodus.” And Meyer remarks: 
“Perfectly adapted to the aroused spirit of the apostle is the 
ironical sense of the words, according to which Paul would con¬ 
vey by them the thought, “ I could not regard as high priest a 
man who shows himself so unholy.” Baumgarten thinks that “ Paul 
expressed by this language his indignant refusal to recognize such 
a tyrant as high priest.” Says Calvin: “ Ego itaque Augustino 
subscribens non dubito, quin haec ironica sit excusatio. Sensus 
ergo verborum est, ego, fratres, in hoc homine nihil agnosco sacer- 
dotale.” The chief objections to this view are — 1. That the fol¬ 
lowing quotation does not accord so well with the indignation and 
irony supposed as with a calmer tone ; and, 2, that the expression 
seems indiscreet, likely to prejudice the Sanhedrim against him. 
We do not think them of much weight, and incline to accept the 
last interpretation. Alford imagines that Paul could not see well 
enough to distinguish between the high priest and others !! 

Again, 3, Paul admits that his teaching is not always God’s 
Word. E. g. 1 Cor. 7 : 6, 10, 12, 25; 2 Cor. 11: 17. ( Cf. Rom. 
3:5; 6:19; Gal. 3 :15.) 

Reply: Not so , as a careful scrutiny of the passages adduced will 
prove. 

1. In 1 Cor. 7: 6, Paul remarks that his language in v. 5 is per¬ 
missive, not mandatory. Thus he characterizes his style of speak¬ 
ing, and not his authority for speaking. 

2. In v. 10, he says: “Not I, but the Lord,” because he refers 
to the language of Christ in Mark 10:11, 12. He does not, as an 
apostle, give them a new command, exhortation, or promise, but 
repeats the express teaching of Christ. 

3. In v. 12, as an apostle, he adds instruction on a point which 
the Saviour had not treated. 

4. In v. 25, he disclaims having any command uttered by Christ, 
but offers his advice as one graciously accounted faithful by the 
Lord, that is, as one intrusted by him with the apostleship. 

5. In v. 40, he again gives his opinion or judgment, addjng, 
“ and I consider myself also to have the Spirit of God.” 

In 2 Cor. 11:17, Paul affirms that he is required, by peculiar 
circumstances, to dwell more upon his own person, authority, and 
labor, than was his custom as a servant and imitator of Christ, to 


38 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


whom he would ascribe all the glory. In doing this he obeys the 
proverb, “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in 
his own conceit.” Says Dr. Woods, i. 125: “He evidently 
means either that there was something in what he said which was 
apparently contrary to the unostentatious, humble character of 
Christ, or something which, in ordinary circumstances, would be 
actually so.” Says Calvin, ingeniously: “ Animus quidem Deum 
respiciebat, sed ipsa forma videbatur minus convenire servo 
Domini. Quanquam liaec qiue de se confitetur Paulus, potius 
damnat in pseudoapostolis. Heque enim illi propositum erat se 
laudare, sed tantum illis se opponere, ut eos dejiceret. Transfert 
igitur in suam personam quod illorum erat propriura, ut Corinthiis 
aperiat oculos.” 

§ YIII. The Old Testament Scriptures virtually God’s 

Word. 

In this Section, we are first to establish our sixth position, viz: 
“ That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were declared by 
Christ and his apostles to be the Word of God,” and then to sug¬ 
gest some additional proofs of this fact. 

The principal items of proof may be connected with the follow¬ 
ing outline, viz: — 

1. Our present Old Testament Scriptures were all written sev¬ 
eral centuries, at least, before Christ. 

2. They were well known at the time of his advent as a collec¬ 
tion of sacred writings. 

3. They were recognized collectively or severally by Christ and 
his apostles as the Word of God. Moreover — 

4. They have been found trustworthy as historical records. 

5. Some of them have been proved to be inspired by the fulfil¬ 
ment of prophecy. 

6. Some of them were authenticated by the working of 
miracles. 

R. a . For evidence in support of the first two statements of 
this 'outline, we may refer to the best Introductions to the Old 
Testament, as those of Ilavernick, Horne, and others, and to 
Stuart on the Old Testament, Alexander on the Canon and 
Treatises on Evidences. 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


39 


R. b. In proof of statement third, we appeal — 

1. To the words of Christ. Matt. 21: 42. {Cf. Mark 12 :10.) 
Matt. 22 : 29. ( Cf Mark 12 : 24.) Matt. 26 : 54, 56. ( Cf Mark 
14:49.) Luke 4:21; 24:46; John5:39; 7:38; 10:35; 13: 
18; 17:12; Matt. 5:17-19; 7:12; 22:36-40; Luke 16:17; 
24:44; 11:51. 

2. To the words of New Testament writers. Luke 24: 27, 32, 
45; John 2: 22; 19: 24,28, 36, 37; 20: 9; Acts 1: 16; 8: 32, 
35; 17: 2; 18: 28; Rom. 3 : 2 ; 2 Tim. 3: 15-17. 

From these and similar passages, it is sufficiently evident, we 
think, that no one can reasonably accept the New Testament as 
God’s Word without accepting the Old Testament as equally so. 

R. c. To justify the fourth statement, we appeal to the works 
of Christian commentators, and also to special treatises, e. g. 
Rawlinson’s Historical Evidences, Hengstenberg on the Penta¬ 
teuch, Edwards, Bib. Sac. n., Blunt’s Undesigned Coincidences, 
Movers on Chronicles, and the like. 

R. d. To justify the fifth statement, we refer to the predictions 
respecting Babylon, Nineveh, Jerusalem, the Jewish nation, and 
the Messiah, with their fulfilment,— Hoffmann, Keith, and others. 
In the first ages of Christianity great use was made of the argu¬ 
ment from prophecy. 

R. e. To justify the sixth statement, we refer to the miracles 
wrought by the hand of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, and 
others. 


§ IX. Nature and Extent of Inspiration. 

In this Section, we jiropose to explain and vindicate the follow¬ 
ing proposition, viz: — 

That the Sacred Writers were moved and assisted by the Holy 
Spirit to put on record all which the Bible , apart from errors in 
the text , now contains. 

On this general proposition we observe — 

1. It makes no reference to the various ways by which their 
several messages were first conveyed to the minds of the Sacred 
Writers: whether (a) by Revelation, as in prophecy; or (b) by 
Observation , as in the narratives of Christ’s life ; or (c) by Expe¬ 
rience , as in many of the Psalms, and in Ecclesiastes; or (d) by 
Study , as in Kings, Chronicles, and Esther. 

It makes a broad distinction between Inspiration and Revela- 


40 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


tion ; the former denoting that influence of the Holy Spirit which 
moves and helps the human subject to express just what God 
pleases; and the latter denoting that action of the divine being 
which presents to the human mind new truths. Inspiration is 
always referred to the Spirit; Revelation is more frequently re¬ 
ferred to Christ. ( Cf. Rev. 1: 1, 9, sq.) A considerable part of 
the Bible is not, therefore, strictly a supernatural revelation from 
God, but simply an inspired record of human thoughts or actions. 
JS. g. Much of Samuel, Kings, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, etc. 

3. It takes for granted that Inspiration by the Holy Spirit did 
not suspend the action of any mental or moral powers in the sub¬ 
jects of it, but rather quickened, elevated, and controlled that 
action. ( Cf. Bib. Sac. xn. 240, sq.) When men were thrown 
into a trance, as Ezekiel, Daniel, Peter, Paul, or John, it was done 
for the purpose of revealing to them new truth. We suppose, 
however, that the communication of new truth, and of the im¬ 
pulse and aid to express it, whether by voice or pen, was effected 
in some instances at the same moment of time. 

4. It asserts the doctrine of plenary inspiration rather than that 
of verbal dictation. In other words, it asserts the dynamical 
instead of the mechanical theory of inspiration, and maintains that 
the Sacred Writers were themselves directly and properly inspired, 
while their messages were mediately and virtually inspired. In 
many cases, no doubt, the Word of God was conveyed to holy 
men as if by dictation from without, but this act of conveying it 
was a revelation. So the Mosaic law, Daniel’s vision, etc. 

5. It assumes, in default of information to the contrary, that the 
recorded sentiments of known apostles or prophets are approved 
by Jehovah ; for it cannot reasonably be held that the Holy Spirit 
would have moved them to put on record sentiments which he 
disapproved, without giving us any intimation of that disapproval. 

Yet the intimation need not be, and is not always formal and 
explicit. E. g. The sentiments uttered by the Psalmist, and in 
the Proverbs, must be received as right in the circumstances, and 
approved by the Spirit; while those uttered by Job and his three 
friends, and some of those expressed by the author of Ecclesiastes, 
must be tested by other parts of the Sacred Records. 

R. This point is not sufficiently elucidated in works that dis¬ 
cuss the doctrine of inspiration. 

6. It does not determine how, or how far , inspired men were 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


41 


conscious of the divine influence on their minds. They seem, 
however, to have had, by some means, a direct, well-grounded, and 
absolute assurance of the truth of their messages, and of the duty 
of publishing them. But as we have had no like experience, it is 
impossible for us to explain the nature of that assurance. 

7. In support of our proposition thus explained, we appeal to 
the following and similar passages: Matt. 10: 19, 20; Acts 15 : 
28; 1 Cor. 2: 13; 14 : 32 ; 2 Peter 1: 21; Num. 22: 35, 38; 
23: 12, 26; 24:13; Jer. 1: 6, sq.; 20: 9; Ez. 2: 6, sq.; 
3 : 4, sq. 

These passages appear to teach that men were moved and aided 
by inspiration to deliver their messages. They were not forced 
to speak; the Holy Spirit did not take possession of their organs 
and use them, as did the demons, described in the New Testament, 
those of their victims ; but they were made willing servants of the 
Spirit by his moral influence. This was true of Balaam, as well 
as of Moses; the constraint was moral not physical in either case. 

R. This view is confirmed, we think, by the word prophet, the 
usual designation, in the Old Testament, of those who made 
known the will of God. (Cf. Deut. 18: 15 ; 1 Sam. 3 : 20 ; 22: 
5 ; 1 Kings 11: 29 ; Jer. 1 : 5 ; Hab. 1:1.) For this word sig¬ 
nifies one who is moved by a divine influence, is an organ of the 
Spirit. ( See also Hosea 9: 7, and Isaiah 43: 27.) It has been 
said that this term points to a suspension of the natural powers, 
and a passive, involuntary transmission of the divine will; but we 
think not. The word must be interpreted in view of all the facts ; 
and we can only say that, etymologically, it points to the divine 
agency as controlling the human soul, giving it fervor, impulse, 
direction, but not interfering necessarily with its freedom. 

Says Ovid, in respect to himself. Fast. vi. 5, sq. 

u Est deus in nobis: agitante calescimus illo. 

Impetus hie saerse semina mentis habet. 

Fas milii prascipue vultus vidisse deorum; 

Vel quia sum vates; vel quia sacra cano.” 

Also Ars Amatorice , hi. 549: — 

“ Est deus in nobis: et sunt commeria Cceli. 

Sedibus aetheriis spiritus ille venil.” 

8. In support of our proposition, we also claim that it accounts 
for all the phenomena of the Bible better than any other; for its 
varieties of style, as well as numerous writers; for its verbal dis- 

* 6 


42 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


crepancies as well as essential harmony ; for the personal feelings 
and tastes which are revealed by its writers, and for a thousand 
traces of high, yet free, spiritual action on their part. How any 
one can read the New Testament, the book of Revelation ex¬ 
cepted, and doubt whether its writers speak with conscious free¬ 
dom, and also with conscious authority, passes our comprehension. 
The letters of Paul are intensely natural and equally supernatural / 
the word is made flesh without losing its heavenly truth and 
power. 

We have spoken thus far of inspiration as an influence of the 
Spirit, which moves and helps the subject of it to make known the 
will of God; we will now examine briefly the sources of knowl¬ 
edge open to the minds of inspired men, following the classifica¬ 
tion suggested in statement first, viz: — 

a. Revelation. That much of the truth made known by inspired 
men was given to them by direct revelation, is evident — 

1. From explicit statements to that effect. E. g. Num. 24: 2,4 ; 
1 Sam. 10 : 6, 10 ; 2 Chron. 24: 20 ; Neh. 9: 30; Zech. 7: 12 ; 
Ezek. 1: 3, sq.; 8: 1, sq.; Acts 2: 18; 19: 6; Luke 24: 49; 
Matt. 22: 43. These texts aver that God, or the Spirit of God, was 
the proper source of whatever the prophets announced. The 
same fact is asserted by the phrases, “ Thus saith the Lord,” “ The 
word of the Lord came to me,” “ The burden of Jehovah,” etc. 

2. From the titles given to inspired men. They were Seers; 
men remarkable for spiritual insight or visions. Hence, the action 
of the Spirit must have affected primarily their intellect; it must 
have laid before their minds truth unperceived by other men. 
They were also called Watchmen , Jer. 6: 17,27; Ez. 3: 17; 
33: 7; Isaiah 52: 8, (Of Hab. 2: 1,)—a term which character¬ 
izes directly the official duty of prophets, but which, at the same 
time, suggests the nature of the divine influence upon them. It 
implies extraordinary intelligence and foresight in the prophets; 
they were to perceive and announce beforehand what was hidden 
from all but God. Moreover, they were called Messengers of 
Jehovah, Isaiah 44: 26; Hag. 1: 13; Mai. 3:1; an appellation 
which implies their dependence on Jehovah for what they say. 

3. From various scriptural representations. E. g. Prophets are 
said to have seen God, angels, and symbolical object^ in vision, and 
to have heard voices in trance. 1 Kings 22: 19 ; Isaiah 6 : 1, sq. ; 
Ez. 1:10; 2:3 , sq.; 11: 24; Dan. 7: 9,s^. / Amos 7 : 7, sq.; and 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


43 


1 Kings 19: 9, sq.; Isaiah 6:8; Ez. 1:28; Acts 9:4; 2 Cor. 
12 : 4; Rev. 1: 10. In the ecstasy, trance, or rapture, the 
spiritual senses of men w<#e opened to see and hear spiritual 
things; their minds were addressed without the medium of the 
bodily senses, with the same effect as if the latter were employed. 

On the whole, we may describe a prophet as one who received 
from God extraordinary knowledge , which , as the special messen¬ 
ger of Jehovah , he was moved and assisted to declare. 

R. a. It is to be remembered that, according to Jewish tradition 
and to the probabilities of the case, all the books of the Old Testa¬ 
ment were either written by the prophets or indorsed by them. 

R. b. It is also to be remembered that the apostles had the gift 
of prophecy. Much of their knowledge was conveyed to them by 
the Spirit of God. In this way Paul received his knowledge of 
Christianity. 

We now pass to the second source of knowledge. 

b. Observation. And here it will be sufficient to note — 1. That 
a large and essential part of the truth given to us in the sacred 
record was first gained by observation. Nearly all the history in 
both Testaments, including the life of Christ, may be traced to 
this source. And 2. That the value of this part of the Bible de¬ 
pends, in a great measure, on the fact that inspired men were in a 
truly normal state as to their mental and moral powers. Their 
testimony is that of men whose consciousness was in a perfectly 
healthful condition, whose reason and memory were quickened 
and invigorated, not superseded, by the Spirit’s action. 

We come next to — 

c. Experience. Many of the Psalms, e. g. are said to be de¬ 
scriptive of the personal experience of the writers. If so, was their 
experience, so far as recorded, in harmony with the will of God ? 
Were the thoughts and feelings which the Spirit led them to 
express in sacred songs, such as it would be right for us to cherish 
in like circumstances ? Are we at liberty to say that these effu¬ 
sions contain those sentiments only which were produced in the 
heart by the Holy Spirit ? 

To these questions we reply in the affirmative — 

1. Because of the general character of the Psalms. Taken as 
a collection, they form a most remarkable portion of the Sacred 
Record. The views which they express of God, of man, of sin? 
of righteousness,, are manifestly of divine origin. The religious 


44 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


emotions which they utter have awakened a response in the best 
Christians of every age. 

2. Because the Psalms are frequeiftly quoted in the New Tes¬ 
tament. Nor is there the slightest intimation, so far as we know, 
of their being less sacred or less divine than the law of Moses or 
the prophets. 

3. Because there are no criteria furnished by the various Psalms 
to enable us to discriminate between right and wrong sentiments 
in them. Hence, we must receive all as right, or reject all. The 
latter we cannot do. But, to the imprecations in the Psalms, what 
shall be said ? Some have replied — 

a. That the passages translated in our version as optative should 
be regarded as prophetic. They simply declare what will be. But 
this does not accord with the usus loquendi , and cannot, therefore, 
be safely urged. 

b. That the desires expressed in these passages were right in the 
circumstances, and produced by the Spirit of God. And in sup¬ 
port of this reply, it may be observed — 

1. That the sense of justice is original in man ; and the nearer 
he approaches to God in his moral character, the more heartily 
will he sanction the justice of God. Unless this be true, how can 
any saint be happy hereafter ? 

2. That the teaching of the law was the chief guide to prayer 
under the Mosaic economy. We do not by this remark intend to 
deny the direct action of the Spirit on the soul at that time, but 
only to deny that he would be likely to lead the Jewish mind to 
crave anything different from that which the law authorized. But 
the law insisted on the righteousness of God, and declared him to 
be the holy punisher of wrong, even to the third and fourth gen¬ 
eration, 

3. That the language of Christ and of Paul is equally severe 
with that in the imprecatory Psalms. See* Matt. 23: 13, sq.; 
Gf. Prov. 1: 24, sq.; 2 Timothy 4 : 14; Cf Acts 23: 3 ; Galatians 
1: 8, 9. 

4. That the cause of God was assailed in the person of David ; 
hence, he did not seek personal revenge, but merely the honor and 
prosperity of the true God. No little importance is to be attached 
to this reason. 

We notice, finally — 

d. Study. This was evidently a source of knowledge to some 


BIBLIOLOGY. 


45 


of the sacred writers. From the preface to Luke’s Gospel we learn 
that he obtained his accurate knowledge of our Saviour’s history 
by careful investigation. He may have been inspired to collate 
and select the testimony, but he unquestionably obtained his infor¬ 
mation from others, and by faithful inquiry. The same may be 
said of at least a part of his other work, the Acts. 

Before leaving the present topic, we must refer to a few objec¬ 
tions to our view. The Bible, it is alleged, cannot be the infalli¬ 
ble word of God, because it contains, 1. Obscure Language. 2. 
Unsound Arguments. 3. False Interpretation. 4. Scientific Er¬ 
rors. 5. Historical Errors. 6. Contradictory Statements. 7. 
False Prophecy. 8. Bad Theology. 9. Bad Morality. We offer 
the following brief replies to these charges. 

1. Obscure Language. This may be due to such facts as the 
following: a. Transcendent objects or events referred to. b. 
Truth to nature and history, c. Adaptation to the first recipients. 
d. Adaptation to special ends, distinct from that of teaching, e. 
Adaptation to man at every stage of human history, f. Adapta¬ 
tion to man as under probation. 

2. Unsound Arguments. We know of none in the Word of 
God. Neither Christ nor any one of his apostles can be shown to 
have used sophistry. By an examination of passages in detail it 
might be shown that their arguments are never unsound, though 
often illogical in form ; but we have no time for this detail. 

3. False Interpretation, a. The language of Scripture is 
confessedly obscure in many places, b. Some of. these are the 
very passages said to be misinterpreted in the New Testament. 
And c. the New Testament writers had a higher respect for the 
Old Testament than have objectors at the present day. If these 
facts be borne in mind, it will not appear strange that instances of 
false interpretation are thought to be found in the New Testament 
although they do not exist. 

4. /Scientific Errors. It may be remarked that all referen¬ 
ces to matters of science in the Bible are, a, merely incidental 
and auxiliary ; b , clothed in popular language ; and, c, confirmed 
by consciousness, so far as they relate to the mind. Remembering 
these facts, we say that the Bible has not been shown to contain 
scientific errors. No declaration of Scripture has been proved 
inconsistent with the facts of Astronomy, Geology, or Ethnology. 

5. Historical Errors. On the supposed historical errors of the 


46 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Bible, we remark: a. They* relate for the most part to matters of 
chronology, genealogy, numbers, etc. b. Transcribers are specially 
liable to mistakes in copying numbers, names, etc. c. Different 
names for the Same person, and different termini for the same 
period, are quite frequent, d. Round numbers are often employed 
for specific. Making proper allowance for these facts, we deny that 
historical errors are found in the Bible. 

6. Contradictory Statements. On this we remark: a. That 
statements may be contradictory in word , but not in sense. “ An¬ 
swer not a fool,” etc. b. They may seem to be contradictory in 
sense when they are not. Trinity and Unity of God. Paul and James 
on justification, c. They may be contradictory in sense , but not 
in moral bearing. Mosaic law and Christ’s are diverse. Bearing 
in mind these facts, it will be impossible for us to discover in the 
Bible any contradictions which mar its excellence. 

7. False Prophecy. Two facts may here be noted: a. That 
for obvious reasons prophecy is more obscure than almost any 
other kind of writing, b. That it is sometimes expressly and 
sometimes tacitly conditional. Giving due weight to these facts, 
we do not find any false prophecy in the Bible. 

8. Bad Theology. God, it is said, is represented in his Word 
as changeful, jealous, revengeful, and, in a word, human. To this 
we reply : a. It is due in part to the imperfection of human lan¬ 
guage, and the limits of human thought, b. It is also due in part 
to the end sought by the Bible, determining its style, c. It is so 
modified by other representations as to give a fair mind the right 
impression of God. 

9. Bad Morality. Deception, treachery, revenge, cruelty, lust, 
are said to be sanctioned by the approved or unreproved conduct 
of good men. This charge rests on two mistakes: a. A mistake 
as to real character of certain acts. b. A mistake as to the 
indorsement of other acts by the Bible. 


THEOLOGY. 


1 


47 


PART SECOND. — THEOLOGY. 


§ I. Preliminary Statements. 

§ II. Of the Existence of God. 

§ III. Of the Modes of his Existence. 

§ IY. Of his Attributes. 

§ Y. Of his Providence. 

§ I. Preliminary Statements. 

Definitions of the term God. 

Origin of our belief in God. 

Works on Theism. 

a. Definitions of the term God. 

1. We shall use this term to signify an absolutely perfect Being. 
Of all the definitions which have been given to the word, we look 
upon this as the simplest and most comprehensive. 

2. According to Cicero, the Stoics approached this conception; 
for they said: “ Nihil est autem praestantius Deo.” De Nat Deor. 
ii. xxx. 77. Augustine expresses and adopts it in the following 
language. “Neque enim ulla anima unquam potuit, poteritve 
cogitare aliquid quod sit te melius, qui summum et optimum bonum 
es.” Conf. vn. 4. So also does Thomas Aquinas, saying: “ Sig- 
nificatur enim hoc nomine id quo majus significari non potest.” 
Pars Pr. 2, n. 471. 

3. According to Justin Martvn, the Neo-Platonists defined God 
to be “ quod idem est eodemque modo semper se habet, et quod 
caeteris omnibus causa est cur sint.” Diafc. Try. c. 11. Mosheim 
adopts the same, thus : “ Per vocabulum Detts intelligimus illam 
naturam, quae’ nullam habet existentiae suae caussam, et omnibus 
rebus extra se constitutis existentiam suam dedit; ” and again: 
“ Deus est ilia natura, quae ipsa independens est, et ex qua reliqua 
omnia pendent.” Pars Prima , § 1, 222. This latter definition is 
very neat and attractive, but it is not sufficiently broad. 

b. Origin of our belief in the existence of God. In the first 




48 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


part of our course we assumed the existence of God; but we must 
now examine the Origin of our belief of God and the Reasons 
which justify that belief. In this place we shall speak of its origin. 
The topic will not detain us long. For our belief of God may be 
traced to one or both the following sources, viz :— 

1. To Revelation , — whether as handed down by tradition from 
age to age, or as perpetuated in the Bible. 

2. To Reason , — since finite causes may suggest a first Cause, 
or marks of design a supreme Designer, or moral law a perfect 
Lawgiver. 

R. It is needless for us to go beyond these two sources in search 
of the origin of our belief in the being of God. 

c. Works on Theism or Natural Theology. 

Anselm, Proslogion de Dei Existentia. Clarke, Discourse on 
the Being and Attributes of God, p. 16, sq. Cudworth, Intel¬ 
lectual System of the Universe. Paley, Natural Theology. 
Bridgewater Treatises, Chalmers, Whewell, Bell, Roget, Buckland, 
Kirby, and Prout. Brougham, Essays on Natural Theology. 
Miller, Footprints of the Creator. Hitchcock, Religion and The¬ 
ology. McCosh, Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation. 
Agassiz, Essay on Classification, vol. i. condensed. Thompson, 
Christian Theism. Prize Essay. Tullock, Theism ; Prize Essay. 
Walker, God Revealed in Creation and in Christ. Hickok, Ra¬ 
tional Cosmology, chap. 1. Hamilton, Lectures on Metaphysics, 
2d Lect. Buchanan, Modern Atheism. Wharton, Theism and 
Scepticism. Mansel’s Limits of Religious Thought. Young’s 
Province of Reason. 

§ II. Of the Existence of God. 

, ' 1 ' It will be our object in this Section to examine some of the 
Reasons which have been supposed to justif y our belief in the 
Existence of God. 

R. a. If men were generally atheists, it would be proper to 
state this part of our task differently; our business would be to 
prove the existence of God, rather than to examine the reasons 
which justify our belief in his existence. The general belief in 
theism throws the burden of proof on those who oppose it; or, at 
least, warns them to be very careful in weighing the evidence 
before they deny the being of God. It is hard to prove a 
negative. 


THEOLOGY. 


49 


R. b. We do not, it will be observed, attempt to review all the 
Reasons which have been urged in support of Theism; it will be 
enough for our purpose to classify them and to consider a few 
specimens. We reduce them to the following classes, viz : — 

i. A Priori. Anselm, Descartes, Maginnis, Cousin. 

ii. Demonstrative. Matter, Motion, World, Bible. 

hi. Historical. New Races, Geology, Miracles. 

iv. Teleogical. Design in Nature, in Mind, in Bible. 

v. Constitutional. In the Intellect, the Sensibilities, the Con¬ 
science. 

vi. Providential. Answers to Prayer, etc. 

i. A Priori Reason for our belief of God. 

This argument proceeds : a. From Cause to Effect, or from a 
thorough knowledge of causes to their effects, b. From the neces¬ 
sary ideas of our minds to answering realities, c. From such ideas 
and realities to what they imply. Form (a) of this argument is 
not applicable to the present topic; we shall give a few illustra¬ 
tions of (b) and (c). Of (b) we notice — 

1. Anselm!s Demonstration. Deus est, credimus, aliquid, quo 
nihil majus cogitari possit. Convincitur etiam insipiens esse vel 
in intellectu aliquid, quo nihil cogitari potest; quia hoc cum audit, 
intelligit; et quidquid intelligitur, in intellect!! est. Et certe id, 
quo majus cogitari nequit, non potest esse in intellect!! solo. Si 
enim vel in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse et in re ; quod 
est majus? C. ii. Again : “ Ergo, Domine, non solum es quo 
majus cogitari requit; sed es quiddam majus quam cogitari possit. 
Quoniam namque valet cogitari esse aliquid hujusmodi; si tu non es 
hoc ipsum, potest cogitari aliquid majus te; quod fieri nequit.” 
B. xvi. 

Thomas Aquinas gives the argument thus : Significatur hcc 

nomine Deus id quo majus significari non potest; majus antem est 
quod est in re et intellectu, quam quod est in intellectu tantum : 
unde cum intellecto hoc nomine Deus , statim sit in intellectu, 
sequitur etiam quod sit in re.” Pars i. Ques. ii. 

Note. This argument proves that in our conception of the 
greatest being there is contained the idea of his existence, but does 
not prove that there is any objective reality answering to our con¬ 
ception. 

2. Maginnis's Demonstration. A perfect being is possible; other¬ 
wise it belongs to the nature of being to be imperfect; and then the 

7 


50 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


perfection of being would consist in its imperfection. But if a 
perfect being is possible, its actual existence is certain; for if it 
does not now exist, its existence is plainly impossible; since any 
being that can hereafter be brought into existence would not be 
perfect. 

Note. Ingenious, but not conclusive. The word “possible” 
does not refer to the same thing in both parts of the argument; 
what is abstractly or conceptionally possible is confounded with 
what is actually or practically possible. ' 

We pass next to form (c) of the a priori argument, and offer 
the following illustrations : — 

1. Clarke's Demonstration. We have in our minds certain 
ineradicable ideas, as those of eternity and infinity; which eternity 
and infinity are attributes or modes of existence. As such, they 
must inhere in some being; hence, an infinite, eternal being, must 
exist. 

Note. Unsatisfactory; because we do not conceive of infinity 
and eternity as being necessarily attributes or modes of real 
existence. 

2. Cousin's Demonstration. Truth, beauty, and goodness, are 
attributes,not essences ; but attributes always belong to a subject; 
hence, absolute truth, beauty, and goodness, must belong to an 
absolute being, i. e. God. 

Note. There is here an assumption of the actual existence of 
absolute truth, beauty, and goodness, merely because we necessarily 
have a conception of them. 

We add a few remarks on the a priori reason for our belief in 
the existence of God. 

a. It is essentially the same in all its forms. 

b. It is logically unsatisfactory, worthless. Says Hamilton, “ The 
sphere of thought is far wider than the sphere of reality, and no 
inference is valid from the correctest thinking of an object to its 
actual existence.” Logic , p. 76. 

c. Its reception by so many able thinkers shows that a belief in 
the existence of God is congenial to human reason. 

d. Indeed, the conceptions of infinity, self-existence, moral per¬ 
fection, &c., in the human mind, together with its constitutional 
tendency to associate them with a living being, may be said to 
^establish a presumption in favor of the existence of God. 


THEOLOGY. 


51 


ii. Demonstrative Reason for our belief of God. 

Under this head we shall present what is often called the cosmo¬ 
logical argument; an argument which attempts to demonstrate the 
being of God from the existence of any finite, dependent object. 

Thus — 

Whatever is not self-existent is an effect; but matter is not self- 
existent : hence, it is an effect. 

The force of this argument depends on the truth of the minor 
premise. If we can establish this premise, the argument is con¬ 
clusive, To do this, it has been said — 

1. That the characteristics of self-existent objects do not belong 
to matter; e. g. independence, immutability, eternity, omnipres¬ 
ence, etc.; space, mathematical truths, and the first principles of 
morality, are instanced as such objects; they exist always, every¬ 
where, and of necessity. 

But the mention of these objects suggests a doubt as to the 
characteristics; for 

a. These objects are all conditions of being or forms of thought, 
rather than actual substances. 

b. As such, their existence seems to be very unlike that of mat¬ 
ter or spirit. 

c. Hence, it is not safe to infer the characteristics of a self- 
existent being or substance from their characteristics. 

Indeed, we do not suppose it possible to determine the charac¬ 
teristics of a self-existent object a priori ; hence, the minor premise 
cannot be established in the way proposed. But it has been said : 

2. That every object within the reach of our senses is dependent 
on something prior to itself for existence. An infinite series of 
causes, or else one first cause, is therefore presupposed by such an 
object. But the existence of an infinite series of causes is demon¬ 
strably absurd. Thus— 

1. Every part of the series is dependent on something out of 
itself for being. 

2. Hence, the whole series is dependent on something out of 
itself for being. 

3. But there is nothing out of itself, according to the hypothesis; 
hence, it depends on nothing; which is absurd. 

Note. One fallacy here consists in assuming the possible com¬ 
pleteness of the series, in speaking of it as a whole / for an infinite 
series is in its very nature without termini. 


52 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Thompson puts the case thus: “ An infinite series is not merely 
incomprehensible; it is impossible. Every link of the chain is 
an additional step within the sphere of knowledge, and w^e have 
no right to speak of anything as incomprehensible. Number is 
perfectly intelligible, and it is easy to see that there can be no such 
thing as an infinite number. It is essentially finite, and can 
never become infinite by addition.” 

Note. So far as a number is complete, it is of course finite ; but 
there is no possible limit to number 'per s'e , any more than there is 
to space. 

We adopt for ourselves the language of Dr. Whewell as true and 
sufficient: “ On the hypothesis of an infinite series, we pass from 
effect to cause, and from that to a higher cause, in search of some¬ 
thing on which the mind can rest; but if we can do nothing but 
repeat this process, there is no use in it. Our question is not an¬ 
swered, but evaded. The mind cannot acquiesce in the destiny 
thus presented to it, of being referred from event to event along 
an interminable vista of causation and time ; it takes refuge in the 
assumption of a first cause , from an employment inconsistent with 
its own nature.” Indications of a Creator , p. 199. Cfi. also Bib. 
Sac. vi. p. 613, sq. and vii. 613, sq. 

A similar demonstration has been attempted in the case of mo¬ 
tion. Thus: Motion can be originated by a voluntary agent only. 
Hence, there must have been an infinite series of motions, all 
dependent, transmitted, or there must be an original mover. But 
the former hypothesis involves an absurdity, hence the latter must 
be true. 

Note. A voluntary being is doubtless the only conceivable 
origin of motion. Plato and Aristotle , as well as many modern 
philosophers, defend this view; and allege that conscious volition 
not only gives rise to our idea of causation, but is itself the only 
original force of which we can form a conception. Yet it will be 
observed that this argument does not prove that motion has origi¬ 
nated from one voluntary agent; it rather assumes this essential 
point. Besides, the absurdity of an infinite series of dependent 
objects is no more self-evident or demonstrable in this than in the 
preceding case. Whewell’s language is again applicable. 

Once more, Cousin says: “We are finite, but we have the idea 
of an infinite One. This idea of an infinite being cannot be 
derived from the finite, whether man or nature. Hence, it must 


THEOLOGY. 


53 


be produced by an infinite one, namely, God. By reason we see 
God.” 

Note. It has not been clearly shown that the infinite is never 
suggested by the finite; if it is thus suggested the argument of 
Cousin fails. 

Remarks on the Demonstrative Argument for the Existence of 
God: — 

a. As a metaphysical demonstration it is not conclusive. 

b. As a moral or probable reason it has very great weight. 

c. This moral force is most obvious in considering the hypothesis 
of an infinite series. 

d. The argument may be studied historically in the works of 
Plato, Aristotle, Turretin, S. Clarke, Brougham, etc. 

hi. Historical Reason for our belief of God. 

Under the “historical reason ” we include all the evidence given 
by known past events, whether occurring before or after man’s 
existence. The history of this earth and its inhabitants, as read 
by faithful scholars, bears witness to such facts as the fol¬ 
lowing : — 

1. Vegetable and animal life was once unknown to our globe. 

2. Such life is not the product of any change in inanimate 
nature. 

3. It must therefore have been originated by a superior power, 
a creative agent. 

Again: 1. Numberless races of animals, specifically distinct, 
exist on the earth. 

2. One species of animals is never derived from another species. 

3. Hence each of these species testifies of a creator. 

Again : 1. There has been a general progress in the animal 

races of our globe, the later ranking higher in the scale of being 
than the earlier. 

2. But there is no tendency to progress, or transmutation into 
higher orders of being, in the races themselves. 

3. Hence this progress cannot be due to the action of a creator. 

Again: 1. The best human testimony assures us of events 

which have transcended or arrested the laws of nature. 

2. These events were brought to pass by a being who claimed 
to be God. 

3. Their moral character or bearing was such as to prove the 
veracity of their author. 


54 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


4. Hence, these events prove the existence of God in the true 
sense of the word. 

R. a. The historical argument overthrows the hypothesis of an 
infinite series, that of development, et id omne genus. 

R. b. It proves the existence of a wise and powerful Creator. 

R. c. It does not prove, unless in the last form, the existence of 
an absolutely perfect Being. 

iv. The Teleological Reason for our belief of God. 

The argument under this head may be stated thus: — 

Order, adaptation, design, are always the product of mind. 

This world and its inhabitants everywhere and clearly exhibit 
these. 

Hence, the world and its inhabitants prove the existence of a 
supreme mind. 

Note. a. At present only the major premise of this syllogism 
is called in question; we shall therefore give attention to that. 
The following positions seem to us correct. 

1. Order, adaptation, etc. do not exist necessarily. It is said 
that space, mathematical truths, and the first principles of morality 
have a necessary existence. To suppose them non-existent, or 
other than they are, involves an absurdity. But whatever may be 
true of these in this respect, certainly order, adaptation, etc. have 
no such existence. They constantly vary; they are originated by 
men, and are destroyed by men; and we are so constituted that 
we do not and cannot conceive of them as necessary or self- 
existent. 

2. They are not the result of accident. It may not be right to 
say that order is never the result of accident; but a high degree 
of order is almost never thus produced. The law of accidental 
combinations, as demonstrated by Laplace, proves this. Indeed, 
sceptics have ceased to refer the design which is evident in nature 
to chance. 

3. They cannot be referred to the properties of matter. These 
properties may be thought to account for the continuance of order, 
but not for its origin or existence. This appears to be self-evident. 
All the properties of matter operate blindly. Every species of 
attraction or repulsion acts under certain conditions inevitably and 
without respect to the good or evil issue. Proportion and arrange¬ 
ment of sea and land, animal adjustments, etc. 


THEOLOGY. 


55 


4. They cannot be referred to any vital forces in nature. These 
again may seem to perpetuate order, etc. but they cannot be 
imagined to originate it. The vital powers of our own nature act 
for the most part blindly and unconsciously. No man ascribes 
foresight or design to mere animal life. 

5. They cannot be referred to instinct. It is somewhat difficult 
to discriminate accurately between instinct and reason. But there 
are some obvious differences. For — a. The power of instinct 
reaches its maximum in very early life; that of reason at a later 
period, if at all. b. The action of instinct is wellnigh perfect; that 
of reason is often very imperfect, c. The action of instinct is con¬ 
fined within a narrow and fixed range; that of reason has free and 
almost boundless scope, d. Instinct is pre-eminently executive, 
artistic; reason, reflective and inventive. In short, instinct is a 
power intermediate between unconscious vitality and conscious 
reason. If, however, any one attribute to it the order, adaptation, 
design, visible in the constitution of the world, he ascribes to it 
the functions of reason, and simply calls reason by another name. 

6. They may be referred to a supreme mind. This we know to 
be a suitable and adequate cause for them; in fact, the only cause 
of which we can have any distinct conception. But it is a princi¬ 
ple of philosophy that causes are not to be unnecessarily multi¬ 
plied ; hence, we refer the order, etc. manifest in all things, to one 
supreme mind. 

Note. b. As to the minor premise of our argument, it may be 
illustrated : 1. By facts revealed by the sciences of Astronomy, 

Geology, Mineralogy, Chemistry, Botany, and the like. 

2. By facts revealed by the sciences of Zoology and Mental 
Philosophy. The adaptation of the powers of instinct to the wants 
and structure of animals, and the adaptation of our mental powers 
to each other, is perfect. 

v. Constitutional Reason for our belief of God. 

It has been said — 

1. That an Idea of God and a belief in his existence are innate; 
his existence is therefore certain, for that which is given in the 
constitution of our souls must be true, if anything is true. 

Says Cicero, “Omnibus enim innatum est et in animo quasi 
insculptum, esse Deos.” Nat. Deor. ii. iv. 12, cf i. xvi. 43, sq. et 
Tusc. Disp. i. xm. 30. 


56 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Calvin uses similar language: “ Hoc quidem recte judicantibus 
semper constabit, insculptum mentibus humanis esse divinitatis 
sensum, qui deleri nunquam potest.” Inst. Rel. Chr. i. 3, 3. 

Note. The human mind seems to have an innate, constitutional 
tendency to the idea and belief of God ; a provision , so to speak, 
in its nature, for their origination or evolution; but the time when 
they actually appear in the mind varies in different persons. It 
may, therefore, be a question whether this constitutional provision 
should be called an idea or belief. It should rather, we think, be 
called the germ of such a belief; for it is more like a seed than 
like an engraving. 

2. “That God is revealed in the rational consciousness.” This 
view is advocated by Tullock. “ The reason,” he says, “ has a 
direct intuition of the Infinite. The Infinite is apprehended as a 
fact; just as objects of sight are cognized as real. God is revealed 
in the rational consciousness.” 

Nearly the same view is maintained by Hickok in his Rational 
Cosmology, ch. i. 

Note. W e think this view to be unsupported by consciousness, 
and irreconcilable with the various and imperfect ideas of God 
which prevail among men. 

3. That the phenomena of conscience prove the existence of 
God. “Conscience,” says Ullmann, “in its deepest nature, i. e. 
considered as an original moral power in man which can never be 
entirely destroyed, is not so much productive as receptive, not 
originative so much as acquiescent, not commanding but rather 
acting in obedience to a law higher than itself. This truth is 
attested by the common consciousness of all men; it finds its ex¬ 
pression in the fact that the dictates of conscience have at all times 
been acknowledged to be the voice of a Lawgiver and a Judge who 
is above man.” Sinlessness of Christ, p. 32. 

Note. As a moral argument, we esteem this exceedingly forci¬ 
ble. The phenomena of conscience cannot well be explained with¬ 
out supposing the existence of God. 

4. That the sense of dependence common to all men proves the 
existence of God. “With the first development of consciousness,” 
says Mansel (p. 120), “ there grows up as part of it the innate 
feeling that our life, natural and spiritual, is not in our own power 
to sustain or prolong; that there is One above us on whom we are 
dependent, whose existence we learn and whose presence we real- 


THEOLOGY. 


67 


ize by the same instinct of prayer.” This sense of dependence, it 
may be added, is supposed by many German theologians to be the 
specifically religious element of human nature, and to be in itself 
an adequate proof of the existence of God. 

Note. We look upon this argument as equally valid with the 
preceding. 

5. That man’s consciousness of freedom and of moral responsi¬ 
bility proves the existence of God. Under this head we give the 
view of Sir William Hamilton. He remarks: a. “ That the Deity is 

not an object of immediate contemplation,”_“ and we are only 

warranted in assuming his existence as a certain kind of cause 
necessary to account for a certain state of things, of whose reality 
our faculties inform us.” 

b. The notion of God comprises in itself not only the attribute 
of omnipotence, but also the attributes of intelligence and virtue. 
Original and infinite power, intelligence, and goodness, united, 
constitute a God. 

c. That to prove the existence of God, we must show that “the 
universe is created by intelligence, and governed not only by 
physical, but by moral laws.” 

d. That this may be done by showing, 1 , that intelligence stands 
first in the absolute order of existence; in other words, that final 
preceded efficient causes; and, 2, that the universe is governed 
by moral laws. 

“We have only to infer,” he says, “ what analogy entitles uS to 
do, that intelligence holds the same relative supremacy in the uni¬ 
verse which it holds in us, and the first positive condition of a 
deity is established, in the establishment of the absolute priority 
of a free creative intelligence.” Again, “ we know there is a moral 
world and a moral governor of the world, because we are conscious 
of being moral agents; a rule of duty has been prescribed to us, 
and we are conscious of being able to act, or not to act, in con¬ 
formity with its precepts. Thus the second positive condition of 
a deity is established.” Metaphysics , Lect. ii. 

vi. Providential Reason for our Belief of God. 

It will be sufficient for us to indicate in a word the nature of 
this argument. It is threefold : — 

1. The true Christian is conscious of having received spiritual 
blessings in answer to prayer. 

8 


58 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


2. He is assured by the best human testimony that prayer for 
others has been answered. 

3. He sees in retrospect that his whole life has been shaped by 
a higher wisdom than his own. 

Conclusion. 1. The first two reasons, “ a priori and demonstra¬ 
tive,” make it probable that our belief in the existence of God is 
correct. 

2. The next two reasons, “ historical and teleological,” prove this 
belief correct, in so far as it avers the existence of a supreme mind, 
wise and good. 

3. The last two reasons, “ constitutional and providential,” prove 
it correct, when it avers the existence of an absolutely perfect 
being. 

R. To remove all doubt as to this last statement, we observe 
that, as religious beings, we have a constitutional proclivity to the 
worship of a supreme being. It is reasonable to believe that our 
Maker intended to have us worship himself. But we are so made 
that we cannot truly and permanently worship an imperfect being; 
one who does not possess every conceivable excellence, whether 
natural or moral. 

§ III. The Modes of God’s Existence. 

These are often classed with the Divine Attributes: but they 
are sufficiently distinct from the latter to be made a separate class. 

When they are classed with the attributes, these are commonly 
divided into Immanent and Transient, Internal and External, 
Quiescent and Active, or Absolute and Relative. 

Our spirit is the only type we have of spiritual existence. We 
start from this in forming our notion of God, and ascribe to him 
in an infinite degree every excellence which our own soul possesses 
in a finite degree. 

This is both scriptural and philosophical. The Bible not only 
teaches that the soul of man was made in the image of God, but 
it makes that soul the basis of its account of God’s nature. Other¬ 
wise, indeed, its teaching would be unintelligible; now it is clear, 
corrective, elevating. 

Yet it is no less true that both reason and revelation pronounce 
God to be infinitely unlike the spirit of man. His nature is for 
the most part above the reach of our feeble intellect, and on this 
very account adorable. 


THEOLOGY. 


59 


In the present Section we shall treat — 

1. Of the Independence of God. 2. Of his Spirituality. 3. Of 
his Unity. 4. Of his Personality. 5. Of his Immutability. 
6. Of his Eternity. 7. Of his Omnipresence. 

i. The Independence of God. 

The Independence predicable of God is absolute. He is subject 
to no laws, conditions, or influences, exterior to himself. 

a. As to his existence, b. As to his knowledge, c. As to his 
happiness, d. As to his action. 

Says John of Damascus, § 18: naaa xilaig na&TjTntcog xeiveZiuu, 

xul ivefjyeT, /udvij r} -d~e(a cp{iaig iailv dcnu&^g^ rm(x&(5g tuvov(ibpi]^ xal 
(xxcvriTwg sv€Qyov<Ju. 

This statement is justified by the Holy Scriptures, which repre¬ 
sents God — 

1. As self-existent. Ex. 3 : 14 ; John 5 : 26 ; Isaiah 44: 6. 

2. As creator of all things. Gen. 1:1; Heb. 11: 3 ; Acts 17 : 
24, 25. 

3. As doing his own will. Rom. 9: 18; Eph. 1: 11. 

Again, it is also justified by reason; for — 

1. To suppose there are self-existent laws, influences, etc. apart 
from God, is to limit his perfection. 

2. To suppose all laws, etc. established by him, and yet pro¬ 
nounce him subject to them, is irrational. It is the Stoic view. 
“Eadem necessitas et deos alligat. Irrevocabilis divina pariter 
atque humana cursus vehit. Ille ipse omnium Conditor ac Rector 
scripsit quidem Fata, sed sequitur. Semper paret , semel jussit. 
Seneca , De Providentia , v. 

3. To suppose mathematical relations and the first principles of 
morality inherent in his nature, is to suppose them eternal and 
immutable, but without making him dependent or subject. We, 
therefore, adopt this view of them. 

ii. The Spirituality of God. 

In affirming the Spirituality of God we mean to affirm — 

1. Negatively, that he is perfectly immaterial ,— a statement 
which may be supported — 

a. By several passages of Scripture, when properly interpreted. 
E. g. John 4: 24; Ex. 20 : 4; Isaiah 40 : 25; Col. 1: 15 ; 1 
Tim. 1:17; Ps. 139: 7-12. 


60 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


b. By the fact of his absolute perfection. For to pronounce him 
material is to deny the simplicity and omnipresence of his nature. 

2. Positively, that he is a real, substantive being, a Natura 
potens , intelligens , et moralis. By this part of our definition we 
affirm that he is more than a relation, a condition, a law,— more 
than pure action, — actio purissima , — as some of the scholastics 
taught, namely, a limng actor. This will be shown when we 
speak of the personality of God. 

hi. The Unity of God. 

In affirming the Unity of God, we simply affirm that there is but 
one divine essence, that God is numerically one in spiritual sub¬ 
stance. This doctrine is opposed to Polytheism, Tritheism, Dual¬ 
ism, and Pantheism. Evidence of its truth may be drawn — 

1. From the Word of God. E. g. Deut. 4: 35; 6: 4; 32: 39; 
2 Sam. 7 : 22 ; 2 Kings 19:15 ; Ps. 86: 10 ; Isaiah 43 : 10 ; 44: 8 ; 
Mark 12: 32, 33. These passages distinctly affirm that there is 
one God, and but one. 

2. From the testimony of nature. And a. From the order vis¬ 
ible in the universe. The fact that innumerable objects in the 
universe, either destitute of life and will, or else acting without 
concert, exhibit such a spectacle of order as we behold, distinctly 
proclaims the unity of their author and governor, b. From the rela¬ 
tion of each part of the universe to the whole. The entire creation, 
so far as we can judge, is linked together, so that every particle of it 
is connected with every other particle, and with the whole sum of 
existence. This points to a single mind as the originator and 
governor of all. c. From the unity of plan discernible in the ani¬ 
mal kingdom. This unity is now admitted by the best zoologists, 
and affords a strong argument for the unity of God. d. From the 
necessary action of reason. It is a contradiction to suppose there 
is more than one Supreme Being. Polytheism nullifies theism. 
There is but one God, or there is no God. 

iv. The Personality of God. 

Here it will be necessary for us to speak very briefly of God — 1, 
as personal, and 2, as tri-personal. 

In default of an exhaustive definition of personality, this term 
may be said to characterize any being to which it is applied, as in¬ 
telligent, voluntary, self-conscious. We hold, then, 1. That God 
is a personal being, in the deepest and truest sense of the expres- 


THEOLOGY. 


61 


sion,— one who knows, feels, and wills. Ample reasons for this 
belief may be found — 

a. In the Holy Scriptures ; which always represent God as a per¬ 
son ; which speak of him as knowing, thinking, desiring, loving, 
hating, willing, purposing, etc. 

b. In the spirit of man; which is from God, and in some degree 
like him. Without wishing to affirm that the term personality 
notes the particular feature of the human soul which renders it a 
copy of the divine nature, we are inclined to believe that the 
resemblance at this point is as complete as at any other. 

c. In the order, adaptation, and design manifest in creation. 
We have seen that these must be referred to a supreme mind as 
their cause; to a mind in contradistinction from an instinct; to an 
intelligent, voluntary supreme being, a person, in the proper sense 
of the term. 

But we also hold, 2. That God is a tri-personal being. His per¬ 
sonality is not , therefore, fully represented by that of man. The 
consciousness of a human spirit is single, — at least for any mo¬ 
ment of time; and its knowledge of self is conditioned on a knowl¬ 
edge of something apart from self. Not so with God: his con¬ 
sciousness is threefold; and all the conditions of perfect self-con¬ 
sciousness and spiritual action are included in his own nature. In 
other words, the absolute Spirit is tri-personal. This peculiarity 
of the Godhead is made known to us by revelation. For the 
Word of God teaches — 

a. The Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Matt. 
28: 19; 2 Cor. 13: 14. 

b. Their mutual knowledge, love, and communion. Gen. 1: 26; 
3: 22; 11: 7; Matt. 11: 25. 

c. Their distinct yet relative offices. Isaiah 48 : 16 ; Zech. 2: 
12, 13. 

We reserve, however, the proof of these statements, and the 
examination of the doctrine of the Trinity, until the fourth part of 
our course, Soteriology, remarking only — 

a. That this doctrine, fairly stated, is not contrary to reason. 

b. That it is not in any proper sense tri-theistic. 

c. That it is very liable to be misapprehended. 

v. The Immutability of God. 

We suppose that God is strictly immutable: — 


62 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


a. In Substance, b. In Knowledge, c. In Character, d. In 
Happiness, e. In Action. 

R. By saying that God is immutable in action, we mean, not 
merely that all his action has the same moral purport or bearing, 
but also that internally it is without succession. See below, vi. 

In support of this view we appeal — 

1. To the Bible. James 1: 17; Ps. 102: 26-28; Isaiah 40: 
28 ; 2 Peter 3:8; Num. 23: 19 ; Mai. 3:6; Heb. 13: 8. 

R. a. These passages are not perfectly decisive; for the lan¬ 
guage is popular, not philosophical. 

R. b. Other passages have been thought to imply change in 
God. E. g. Gen. 6: 6; Ps. 95: 10; Ex. 4: 14. But these also 
are inconclusive; for they may be understood to speak of God 
more humano. 

2. To Reason. Change appears to be impossible in an abso¬ 
lutely perfect being. God is immutable. .Says Turretin: “ Quia 
nec potest mutari in melius, quia optimus ; nec in pejus, quia de- 
sin eret esse perfectissimus.” L. hi. 2, xi. 4. The same thought 
may be found in Augustine’s fifteenth Tract on John. 

vi. The Eternity of God. 

In defining what we mean by the eternity of God, we say that 
his existence — 

a. Never began, b. Never will end. c. Is timeless. 

In proof of (a) and ( b ) we appeal — 

1. To Scripture. Gen. 21: 33; Deut. 32: 40; Ps. 90: 1-4; 
Isaiah 41: 4; 48: 12; Job 36: 26, 27; Dan. 12: 7; Rom. 1: 
23; 1 Tim. 1: 17; Rev. 10: 6; 15: 7. 

2. To Reason. Necessary existence enters into our concep¬ 
tion of God. The supreme being always is for the same reason 
that he ever is. 

In support of (c) we refer — 

1. To Scripture. E. g. James 1: 17 ; 2 Peter 3:8; Ps. 90: 4. 
These passages are not, however, decisive. 

2. To Reason. An eternal being cannot grow older or wiser. 
If he is self-existent, he is so in his absolute perfection. 

Says Mosheim: “iEternitas absolute et in se spectata, fixa sine 
dubio est et successionis expers; et eadem aeternitas, ad nos re- 
lata, sine dubio habet successionem, neque a nobis sine successione 
concipi potest.” 


THEOLOGY. 


63 


vii. The Omnipresence of God. 

Here it may be said — 

a. That God is at every point in space, b. That he fills no part 
of space. 

In other words, he is present everywhere, but is absolutely inde¬ 
pendent of space. In confirmation of this view we appeal — 

1. To God’s Word. JE. g. 1 Kings 8: 27; 2 Chron. 6: 18; 
Isaiah 43 : 2; 66: 1; Jer. 23 : 23, sq.; Ps. 139 : 6-12 ; Amos 9 : 
2, sq. ; Matt. 6:4-6; John 4: 20-24 ; Acts 17 : 24, 27, 28. 

2. To enlightened Reason. Such a mode of existence is neces¬ 
sary to the highest perfection of his nature. 

For to say that God, as a spiritual substance, is not omnipresent, 
is to declare him finite in one respect, and to assert that a greater 
being is conceivable. 

To say, on the other hand, that he is measured or comprehended 
by space, so as to fill it, or any part of it, is to affirm that a part of 
his substance may be here and a part elsewhere, thus ascribing the 
properties of matter to purest spirit. 

Says Augustine: “ Ileus non alicubi est. Quod enim alicubi est, 
continetur loco; quod loco continetur, corpus est. Kon igitur 
alicubi est, et tamen, quia est et in loco non est, in illo sunt potius 
omnia quam ipse alicubi. Nec tamen in illo omnia, ut ipse sit 
locus? 

R. The omnipresence of God, as thus defined, does not conflict 
with the idea of a local heaven, where God reveals himself with 
special clearness to the good. 

§ IV. The Attributes of God. 

These we propose to consider in the following order: — 

1. Omniscience. 2. Righteousness. 3. Benevolence. 4. Will. 
5. Omnipotence. 

Many theologians add to this list Wisdom, Justice, Mercy, etc.; 
but needlessly; for all the perfections ascribed to God in his Word 
may be referred to one or more of the attributes now given. 

Others have reduced the list by omitting Righteousness: but 
wrongly; for it cannot be shown that benevolence includes right¬ 
eousness, that a delight in the happiness of others involves of 
necessity a delight in their moral perfection. Rectitude is more 
than a means to an end; it is good in itself. Hence God might 
have provided for it in the constitution of mankind, even if the 
sum of their happiness were not to be augmented thereby. 


64 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


There is, however, much more to be said in favor of omitting 
omnipotence from the list; for the power of a spirit is the power 
of will, and might very naturally be treated under that head. It 
is, however, customary to make omnipotence a distinct attribute 
of God, and we do not think it wise to deviate from the beaten 
path at this point. 

i. The Omniscience of God. 

To define this attribute we say that God knows — 

a. All things ever actual, b. All things ever possible. 

In proof of this we adduce the testimony — 

1. Of Scripture, (a) Ps. 139: 7-16; 94: 9-11; Jer. 16: 17; 

23 : 24 ; 1 Kings 8 : 39 ; Luke 16: 15; Rom. 8: 27. ( b ) Isaiah 

42: 8, sq.; 46: 9, sq. (c) Ex. 3: 18, sq.; Jer. 1:5; Ps. 139: 2, 
16; 1 Sam. 23: 10-13; Ez. 3: 6, sq. (d) Isaiah 40: 28; Ps. 
147 : 4, 5 ; 1 John 3: 20; Heb. 4 : 13 ; Rom. 11: 34. 

These passages show that God knows all things, great and small, 
hidden, future, and contingent. 

2. Of Reason. Absolute perfection includes omniscience. The 
omnipresence of an intelligent being proves his omniscience. The 
admirable order pervading the universe intimates the omniscience 
of its author. 

3. Of Conscience. The moral judge of the universe must be 
able to search the hearts of all: our consciences will not accept 
the decision of any less intelligent judge; for they assure us that 
he could not do right. 

We also remark that the knowledge of God differs from that of 
man — 

a. In being timeless and intuitive, not successive or inferential. 
He does not remember and foresee ; looking at events as past and 
future ; but he knows or sees them as present realities. 

b. In being independent. His knowledge comprehends, we 
suppose, all the perfections of his own nature without foreign aid ; 
all possible events under all possible constitutions of creation ; and 
all events rendered at any time actual by the constitution of the 
universe as it is. In each case his knowledge springs from his own 
mind or will. 

c. In being certain and perfect; so complete as to be incapable 
of change. 


THEOLOGY. 


65 


We also remark that such knowledge in God is consistent:— 

a? With real agency on the part of second causes, physical 
causes. By originating intelligently a physical cause, God origi¬ 
nated all which that cause effects ; for he knew the power, circum¬ 
stances, and future history of the same; all were indirectly from 
himself. 

b? With all conceivable freedom and responsibility on the 
part of voluntary causes, or moral agents under his control. 

Cicero denied this position thus: “ If all future events are fore¬ 
known, they will occur as they are foreknown. And if they will 
occur in this order, the order of events is certain to the foreknow¬ 
ing God. And if the order of events is certain, the order of causes 
is certain. For nothing can take place which is not preceded by 
some efficient cause. But if the order of the causes of all events is 
certain, all events come to pass by fate. If this be so there is 
nothing in our power, and there is no choice of will.” De Fato 
et Divinatione , n. 5-7. 

To which Augustine replies thus: “ It does not follow that, if 
the order of all causes is certain to God, nothing depends on the 
choice of our will; for our volitions themselves are in the order of 
causes, which is certain to God and foreknown by him; inasmuch 
as human volitions are the causes of human deeds. Hence, who¬ 
ever knows all the causes of events cannot be ignorant of our 
volitions as being also among those causes. So, then, we are by 
no means compelled either retaining the foreknowledge of God to 
remove choice of will, or retaining choice of will to deny God’s 
foreknowledge of future events; but we embrace both,— one that 
we may believe well, the other that we may live well.” De Civ. 
Dei , v. 9, 10. 

This reply may not be wholly satisfactory; yet it probably 
states the truth as it is. 

c. 2 With the reality of purpose and election on the part of God. 
It has been said that divine omniscience, as explained above, ex¬ 
cludes purpose, as it does foreknowledge. But this is a mistake ; 
for there is just as much of plan, causality, and logical priority, in 
events, as seen by the divine mind, according to this view as ac¬ 
cording to any other. 

ii. The .Righteousness of God. 

Holiness is sometimes preferred to righteousness as a name for 
the attribute in question. But as it is often used in a broader 
9 


66 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


sense to denote all which is adorable in the Divine Being, — the 
sum of his attributes, — we think it less suitable for our present 
purpose than the term we have chosen. 

To define the righteousness of God, we say — 

a. That he delights supremely in whatever is morally right, — 
in rectitude as such. 

b. That he always does that which is morally right. 

In proof we appeal — 

1. To God’s Word. a. Lev. 19 : 2; Isaiah 6: 3; Ps. 5: 5 ; 11: 
7; 15 , passim; 33: 5; 45 : 8; 1 Peter 1: 16; Rev. 4: 8. b. 
Deut. 32: 4; Ps. 97: 2; 145: 17; Rom. 2: 13; 7: 12. 

2. To Reason. This attribute is essential to our idea of a per¬ 
fect being, and is presupposed by the religious nature of man. 

3. To Conscience. We are often reminded by this inward 
monitor that God is sorely displeased with our wickedness. 

R. a. The Justice of God is his righteousness, as expressed in 
moral government, in legislation, judgment, retribution. 

R. b. If the righteousness of God should ever conflict with his 
benevolence, the latter must yield. Perhaps it does in the case of 
the finally lost. Looking at them alone, it may be that righteous¬ 
ness without benevolence is illustrated in their treatment after 
death. 

R. c. Ordinarily, however, when the Bible speaks of conflicting 
emotions in the mind of God, the language must be understood as 
spoken more humano. 

Says Augustine: “ Rebus enim quae in creatura invenientur, 
solet Scriptura divina velut infantilia oblectamenta formare, quibus 
infirmorum ad quserenda superiora et inferiora deserenda, pro suo 
modulo tanquam passibus moveretur affectus.” De Trinitate , 

i. 1, 2. 

Says another writer: “ Tota Scriptura loquitur nobis tanquam 
balbutiendo, sicut mater balbutiens cum filio suo parvulo, qui 
aliter non potest intelligere verba ejus.” 

R. d. When the Bible ascribes anger, fury, vengeance, to God, 
it does not refer to any effervescent passion, but to a steady and 
earnest hatred of moral evil, as disclosed in punitive justice. 

R. e. On the other hand we must beware of interpreting away 
the exceeding force of such language; for it does not exaggerate 
God’s hostility to sin. 


THEOLOGY. 


67 


Says Lactantius: “Si Deiis non irascitur impiis et injustis, nec 
pios justosque diligit. In rebus enim diversis aut in utramque 
partem moveri necesse est, aut in neutram.” De Ira , v. 9. 

R./*. The temporal calamities of individuals do not prove them 
to be especially guilty in the sight of God. Job, passim. Luke 
13: 2-5; John 9: 1-3; Heb. 12: 6. 

Says Seneca: “Nolite obsecro vos, expavescere ista, quae dii im- 
mortales velut stimulos admovent animis. Calamitas virtutis 

occasio est. Hos itaque Deus, quos probat, quos amat, in - 

durat, recognoscit, exercet: eos autem, quibus indidgere videtur > 
quibus par cere, molles venturis malis servat. Erratis enim, si quern 
judicatis exceptum. Venet ad ilium diu felicem sua portio.” De 
Prov. c. iv. 

hi. The Benevolence of God. 

To define this attribute we say that God delights in the hap¬ 
piness of his creatures, that he constantly exercises toward them 
good-will. 

It will therefore be seen that benevolence is a more suitable 
word for the designation of this attribute than goodness or love; 
since the former of these is not sufficiently precise, and the latter 
affirms too much. In proof of God’s benevolence we cite — 

1. The testimony of Scripture. Ps. 57: 11; 103 : 11, 13 ; 136 
passim ; 145: 9; Isaiah 49: 15 ; Matt. 5 : 45 ; 6: 26-30; 7 : 9- 
11; Luke 12 : 7, 24; John 3 : 16; 1 John 4: 8, 16; 1 Tim. 2:4; 
Titus 3: 4; 2 Cor. 13: 11, 13; Ez. 18: 23; 33: 11. 

2. The testimony of Reason. This attribute is necessary to per¬ 
fection. Besides, the predominance of happiness over misery in 
the animal world seems to prove the Creator’s benevolence. 

R. a. The Patience of God is his benevolence, as exercised 
towards those who deserve instant punishment. 

R. b. The Mercy of God is his benevolence, as exercised towards 
the miserable. 

R. c. The Grace of God is his benevolence, as exercised towards 
the guilty or undeserving. 

R. d. The Wisdom of God is his omniscience, righteousness, and 
benevolence, exercised in attaining the best ends by the best 
means. 

iv. The Will of God. 

The term Will may be used to signify the faculty of volition, 
the act of volition, the contents of volition, or simple preference. 



68 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


We shall first use it in the sense of voluntary action , the second 
meaning given above. Thus defined, God’s Will may be de¬ 
scribed — 

a. As spontaneous. No impulse ccb extra , and independent of 
himself, determines the will of God. He is the Causa causarum , 
and whatever conditions his voluntary action is itself conditioned 
on his action. This is true even of prayer. 

b. As unhesitating. The attributes of God, already considered, 
exclude hesitation and uncertainty. He wills what is on the whole 
best with an undivided and indivisible impulse of his moral 
nature. 

c. As timeless. The will of God produces the temporal, but is 
itself eternal and immutable. Augustine* speaks of it as “ qucedam 
ineffabilis tranquillitas actionis otiosce; ” by which he means to 
affirm that in God “ the deepest rest is not excluded by the 
highest action.” Cf. Eph. 1: 4, 5, 11; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Peter 
1: 20. 

d. As determinative. And as such — 

1. It cannot be thwarted; even sin is made subservient to it. 
Ps. 76: 11. 

2. We may innocently attempt to thwart it: JE. g. in a vain 
effort to prevent death. 

3. It is the proper cause of all moral good. James 1: 17 ; John 
15: 5. 

R. Yet the words of Cicero, for the Stoics, seem to express 
truth. “Virtutem autem nemo unquam acceptam Deo retulit. 
Nimirum recte. Propter virtutem enim jure laudamur, et in vir- 
tute recte gloriamur. Quod non contingeret, si id donum a Deo, 

non a nobis haberemus.Num quis, quod bonus vir esset, 

gratias Diis egit unquam ? At quod dives, quod honoratus, quod 
incolumis. Jovemque optimum, maximum, ob eas res appellant, 
non quod nos justos, temperatos, sapientes, efficiat, sed quod salvos, 

incolumes, opulentos, copiosos.Judicium hoc omnium mor- 

talium est, fortunam a Deo petendam, a se ipso sumendam 
sapientiam.” De Nat. Deor. hi. 36. This, however, is very far 
from the Christian view. 

4. It cannot be the proper cause of moral evil. James 1: 13; 
Eccles. 7: 29. 

R. Yet, by creating beings who can sin, the will of God is in a 
sense the condition of moral evil. It originates potential , and 




THEOLOGY. 


69 


permits actual sin; but in no such way as- to be responsible for 
the latter. Still, we may conclude that a universe containing 
peccable beings is better, notwithstanding the disturbance of sin, 
than any other could have been without this disturbance. 

Again, taken in the third sense, the will of God, as revealed to 
us by conscience and the Bible, may be characterized for the most 
part as preceptive. And as such — 

1. It is always the rule of duty; though it does not, in every 
case, show what God desires on the whole to have accomplished. 
Cf. Gen. 22: 2, 11. 

2. It is generally the expression of what, in itself considered , 
God prefers. 1 Tim. 2 : 4 ; Ez. 33: 11. 

3. It often fails of being accomplished. Matt. 23: 37; Luke 
13 : 34. 

R. The preceptive will, or authority of God, but not his con¬ 
trolling will, is made to bear at all times against sin. 

v. The Omnipotence of God. 

This attribute answers to the will of God regarded as a faculty 
or power , the first meaning given above. 

To define this attribute, we say that God is able to effect — 

a. Whatever he wills to effect. He makes no abortive efforts. 
“ Deus potest quod vult.” 

b. Whatever he can will to effect. That is, whatever his other 
attributes will sanction; but he is morally unable to do many 
things. “ Deus potest quod velle potest.” 

c. Whatever power can effect. “Deus potest omnia physice 
possibilia.” But he cannot create another God. In proof we 
cite — 

1. The testimony of Scripture. Gen. 18: 14; Matt. 19: 26; 
Luke 1 : 37 ; Eph. 3 : 20 ; 2 Cor. 6 : 18 ; Rev. 1:8; Jer. 27 : 5; 
Isaiah 40 : 26 ; Job 41, passim; Ps. 136: 4; Jer. 32 : 17. 

2. The testimony of reason. Such power is necessary to the 
perfection of God. Its possession is rendered probable by the 
creation and preservation of the universe. 

§ V. The Providence of God. 

We shall maintain in this Section that the government of God 
over moral beings is providential. 


70 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


And by a providential government or administration, we mean 
one which takes care or provides that the ends for which it was 
established be reached. 

Hence it presupposes — 1. Some final cause or causes, for the 
sake of which it was originated. 

2. Some general arrangement of the means or agents for bring¬ 
ing about the results contemplated. 

3. Some direct or indirect control of the means or agents intro¬ 
duced; either — 

a. By a preadjustment of all natural and moral forces, so perfect 
as to render subsequent interference needless; or — 

b. By such special interference from time to time as may be 
requisite to secure the intended results. 

To prove that God’s government over moral beings is thus 
providential, we may appeal — 

1. To the Word of God; for this word teaches — 

a. That God has a plan to be carried into effect which includes 
the work of Christ. Isaiah 46: 10; 14: 24; Acts 15 : 18; Rev. 
13 : 8; Eph. 1: 4, 11; Matt. 25: 34. 

b. That this plan is carried into effect by divine action or per¬ 
mission. John 3 : 16 ; Phil. 2 : 6-11; Acts 4: 28. 

c. That the divine action is partly direct, as in the hearts of 
men; Matt. 18: 20. (Cf. 28: 20.) John 14: 20, 21; Phil. 4: 
13; 1 Cor. 12: 3 ; Rom. 5:5; Gal. 5: 22; Phil. 2: 13. 

d. That the action of God is associated with that of man, as in 
prayer. Rom. 8: 26; John 16: 23; 14: 13, 14. (Cf. Prov. 16: 
1,9; 20: 24; 21: 1; Jer. 10: 23.) 

e. That the action of God is freely adapted to the moral state of 
man. Gen. 6: 11-13; 18 : 20; 19: 24; Ex. 19: 16, sq. ; Josh. 
3: 16 ; Jonah 3:10; Heb. 2 : 4. 

f That God makes even the wickedness of men subserve his 
plan. Gen. 50: 20; Ex. 3: 19, sq.; 9: 12; 1 Kings 22: 22,23; 
Psalms 76: 11; Romans 9: Yl,sq.; Acts 16: 29, and context; 
Isaiah 10: 5, 7, 12, 15. 

g. That God employs good and evil angels in his providential 
government. Psalms 103: 21; Heb. 1 : 14; Matt. 18: 10; Acts 
5 : 19; 2 Sam. 24: 1; cf. 1 Chron. 21 : 1. 

h. That he makes use of irrational creatures and the elements of 
nature in administering this government. Ex. 8: 16, 17; 10: 12; 
Joel 1:4; Ex. 9 : 23. 


THEOLOGY. 


71 


Again, we may start from the Bible and prove our doctrine by 
an argument a minori ad majus ; thus — 

Those parts of the universe which appear to us the most insig¬ 
nificant are objects of God’s particular care. Matt. 10: 29; 6: 
26 ; Psalms 147 : 9. 

Hence, moral beings, the crown and flower of the creation, can¬ 
not be overlooked. See Matt. 10: 30, 31; 1 Cor. 9: 9; cf. 1 
Tim. 5 : 18. But we appeal — 

2. To Reason. For the omniscience and benevolence of God 
seem to require that his moral government be providential; since 
otherwise it may accomplish no real good, and might as well have 
never been instituted. 

3. To Christian Feeling. For no other view of God’s moral 
government satisfies a devout worshipper. 

R. a. If it be objected, that we thus make God the Author and 
Upholder of Evil, we reply, — God upholds all which he creates / 
but he has never created sin , neither does he in any proper sense 
uphold it. 

R. b. Cicero makes Balbus the Stoic, and Cotta the Hew Acad¬ 
emician, deny the care of God over small events ; thus : “ Magna 

dii curant, parva negligunt.” De Nat. Deor. n. 66. Again: “At 
enim minora dii negligunt, neque agellos singulorum, nec viticulas 
persequentur: nec uredo, aut grando quippiam nocuit, id Jovi ani- 
madvertendum fuit. Re in regnis quidem reges omnia minima 
curant.” Id. in. 35. 

Jerome urges the same thought: “Absurdum est, ad hoc de- 
ducere Dei majestatem, ut sciat per singula momenta, quot nas- 
cuntur pulices, quotque moriantur, quae cimicum, pulicum, et 
muscarum, sit in terra multitudo, quanti pisces in aqua natent. 
Ron sumus tarn fatui adulatores Dei, ut dum potentiam ejus etiam 
ad ima trahimus, in nosmet ipsos injurii simus, eandem rationabilium 
et irrationabilium providentiam esse dicentes.” Com. in Hob. ch. i. 

To this argument, which has been pressed again and again in 
modern times, Ambrose had made a sensible reply before the age 
of Jerome : — 

“ Et quis operator negligat operis sui curam? Quis deserat et 
destituat quod ipse condendum putavit? Si injuria est regere, 
nonne est major injuria fecisse ? ” De Officiis Ministr. i. 13. 

R. c. On 1 Cor. 9: 9, cited above, it may be observed, that Paul 
makes the precept, “ Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth 


72 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


out the corn,” to have been given, not for the sake of protecting 
the ox from suffering, but for the sake of teaching a great lesson 
of equity, — the laborer is worthy of his hire, — the fruit of a 
man’s industry is his own, — suum cuique. Says Calvin, “ Sensum 
autem Pauli simplex est: Quod Dominus humanitatem erga boves 
praecipit, non id facere bourn gratia, sed hominum potius respectu, 
propter quos etiam boves ipsi creati sunt.” Again — “Naminde 
a minori ad majus colligitur, quantam aequitatem requirat inter 
homines, quam earn brutis animalibus velit servari.” 

In conclusion, we remark — 

a. So close a connection subsists between all parts and events of 
the created universe, that God’s government must be esteemed 
providential over each part or event in particular, or over nothing 
at all. 

b. The propriety of distinguishing between a general and a 
special providence is questionable. To be sure, every event works 
for good to the Christian, but it is not therefore any more provi¬ 
dential to him than to the unbeliever; punishment and reward are 
equally provided for by the moral Governor. 

c. In administering his moral government providentially , God 
reveals its fundamental principles by laws adapted in form and 
detail to the condition of those addressed. 

d. As the punishment of sin must be an expression of his immu¬ 
table estimate of its evil, the force of this expression, whatever 
may be true of its form, cannot be diminished or reduced, having 
been once given. Nor is it in the substitution of Christ’s death 
for that of the sinner. 

e. While every event is to be regarded as strictly providential, 
it is not always easy to ascertain the import of a particular event. 
In general, however, it may be said that the more striking and 
momentous any event may be to a particular person, the more em¬ 
phatically does God intend to appeal to *him by it, and the more 
important is it for him to understand and heed the lesson. 


THEOLOGY'. 


73 


SUPPLEMENT. 

The Doctrine of Angels. 

R. For want of a better place, we treat this topic here. It may 
be premised — 

1. That we shall use the term angels in its popular acceptation, 
to signify an order of created beings distinct from man. 

2. That our knowledge of them must be derived exclusively 
from the Bible. 

3. That the Bible speaks of them for practical purposes, and 
never to gratify our curiosity. 

4. That as demons appear to be fallen angels, they will be in¬ 
cluded in the treatment of our present subject. 

5. That inasmuch as the term angel is sometimes used in the 
Word of God, when it does not refer to the order of beings men¬ 
tioned above, these exceptional uses of the word should be excluded 
at the outset. We propose, then, to exclude from this examination 
the term angel when it is applied — 

1. To Jehovah ; as, e.g. in the following passages: Gen. 16: 7, 
10, 13; 18 : 13, 17, 20, 22, 33 ; 31: 11-13; (cf 28: 11-22;) 32: 25- 
31 ; (cf Hosea 12 : 4;) 48 : 15,16; Ex. 3, passim ; Jud. 13, passim. 

2. To men ; whether as religious teachers bringing the messages 
of God to their fellows, Eccl. 5: 5; Is. 42: 19; Hag. 1:13; Mai. 
2: 7 ; 3: 1; (cf. Matt. 11: 10 ;) or as messengers employed by their 
fellows, 1 Sam. 11: 3; 16: 19; Job 1 : 14; Luke 7: 24; 9: 52; 
James 2: 25 ; and possibly Rev. 1 : 20. 

3. To the elements , as commissioned to do the will of God. 
Psalms 104: 4. This, however, is regarded as somewhat doubtful. 

We propose to consider, briefly, the testimony of God’s Word 
in respect — 

To the Nature , the Character , and the Employment of Angels. 

In considering the nature of angels, we shall speak — 

Of their substance, their power, and their knowledge. 

1. As to the substance of angels. 

Very little information is given us on this point. A few pas¬ 
sages may, however, be cited for the hints, if not for the precise 
information which they afford. E. g. 

10 


74 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


a. Heb. 1 : 14. Here the angels of God are called nvBvgaxct, — 
spirits. The meaning “ winds,” plausible in v. 7, would be absurd 
in this place. 

b. Luke 20: 36. Here we are taught several peculiarities of 
saints after the resurrection, — namely : They will not marry, nor 
be given in marriage ; they will be no longer mortal; a peculiarity 
which explains the foregoing; and they will be like angels ; which 
accounts for the two previous statements. 

Now, we are taught that saints, after the resurrection, will pos¬ 
sess bodies (1 Cor. 15, passim) ; and hence, we may infer that 
angels have them likewise. Still, as the apostle, by calling the 
glorified body “ spiritual,” refers not to its substance , but to its 
function, we have no account of the former in his language. 

To the passages Yvhich relate to holy angels may be added some 
which speak of fallen angels or demons; e. g. 

c. Matt. 10 : 1; Luke 10 : 17, 20; Eph. 6 : 12; and 

d. The language of Gen. 6 : 2, 4, compared with Jude 6-8. 

Many advocate the opinion that certain angels, who perhaps for 

the time assumed human forms, are meant by the phrase “sons of 
God,” in this passage. The arguments employed to justify this 
interpretation are plausible, viz :— 

1. The phrase “ sons of God” is elsewhere in the Old Testament 
applied to angels, e. g. Job 1 : 6; 2 : 1; 38 : 7; Psalms 89 : 7 ; but 
never to good men as such. 

2. The contrast between “ sons of God ” and “ daughters of 
men ” requires us to look upon the former as superhuman beings. 

3. The passage in Jude charges certain angels with the sin here 
mentioned, and thus confirms the proposed interpretation. 

In reply, we have only to say, that this interpretation supposes 
an occurrence which seems too strange and unnatural for belief, 
and that the basis on which it rests is too narrow and insecure for 
such a weight. We now proceed to consider — 

2. The power of angels. 

This topic is very imperfectly elucidated in the Word of God. 
Yet such texts as follow seem to justify us in ascribing to them 
remarkable and superhuman power. Psalms 103 : 20; 2 Peter 2 : 
11; (cf 2 Thes. 1:7;) Matt. 26: 53; 28 : 2. 

Again, the designation “Jehovah of hosts ” appears to be applied 
to God by the Sacred Writers, in order to indicate his power , not 
merely in himself, but also in the angelic legions at his command. 


THEOLOGY. 


75 


We naturally imagine the army of God worthy in some degree ol 
its leader. This argument is, however, far from conclusive; for, 
under God, the weakest are strong (1 Cor. 1: 27), and numbers 
may supply the want of individual might (Joel 2: 2-11). 

It may be added, that several passages seem to teach that angels 
are able to control the elements of nature. Rev. 7 : 1, 2 ; 16 : 5 ; 
Acts 12: 6-11 ; Job 1: 12, sq.; 2: 6, sq. 

R. The power of angels is limited. Heb. 1: 14 ; 2 5; Jude 9. 
We come now to the last head — 3. The knowledge of angels. 
That this is very great, may be concluded — 

a. From the language of Christ. Matt. 24: 36; cf. 2 Samuel 
14 : 20. 

b. From their being with God. Matt. 18 : 10 ; 22: 30 ; Is. 6: 3 ; 
Ez. 1 and 16, passim. 

c. From their devout curiosity. 1 Peter 1 : 12. 

d. From specimens of demoniac intelligence put on record. 
Mark 1: 24 ; Acts 19 : 15; Matt. 4: 1, sq. 

R. Yet their knowledge is limited as well as their power. Matt. 
24: 36 ; 1 Peter 1: 12. Our next topic is — 

3. The character of angels. In this respect they form two classes, 

i. Many of them are sinless. This we learn — 

a. From the epithets applied to them. .Acts 10: 22; Matt. 25: 
31;? 1 Tim. 5: 21; Rev. 4 : 10 ; ? cf. Heb. 13 : 2 ; 2 Cor. 11: 14. 

b. From the place where they dwell. Luke 1: 19 ; 12 : 8; Matt. 
18 : 10 ; Mark 12 : 25 ; Rev. 5 : 11. 

c. From the worship they render. Is. 6 : 3 ; Rev. 7 : 11. 

d. From the offices they perform. Heb. 1 : 14; Matt. 18 : 10; 
Luke 16 : 22 ; 2 : 10, sq. ; 22: 43 ; Gen. 28:12 (not John 5:4; 
because the verse may be an interpolation). 

R. It is natural to propose questions concerning the moral state 
and history of good angels which the Word of God answers very 
indirectly or not at all. E. g. 

1. Were they ever in a state of probation ? 

Reply. The language of Jude 6 seems to warrant an affirmative 
answer. 

2. Are they now in such a state ? 

Reply. No more so, probably, than the saints will be hereafter. 
See 1 Tim. 5 : 21. 

3. Have they always been holy ? 

Reply. The language of Jude 6, would incline us to suppose 
they have. 


76 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


4. Is their stability in virtue due in part to either angelic or 
human apostasy? 

Reply. It may be so. 

5. Is their state of blessedness due at all to the work of Christ ? 
Reply. The kind and degree of their blessedness may be modi¬ 
fied by that work; but more than this should not probably be 
inferred from Eph. 1: 10 ; and Col. 1: 20. 

Again — n. Many of them are sinful. This we learn — 

a. From the epithets applied to them. Matt. 10: 1; Mark 3 : 
11; Luke 9 : 42 ; Matt. 12 : 45 ; Luke 8:2; Acts 19 : 12-16. These 
are but specimens; passages of a similar character abound in the 
New Testament. 

b. From the place of their abode, now and hereafter. 2 Peter 
2:4; Jude 6 ; Luke 8: 31; Matt. 25 : 41; Rev. 20 : 7, 10 ; cf. 

1 Tim. 3 : 6. 

c. From the works they perform. Job 1: 6-9; 2 : 1, sq.; Zech. 
3 : 1, 2 ; 1 Sam. 16 : 14 ; 18 : 10 ; 1 Kings 22: 21, sq.; Zech. 13 : 

2 ; Rev. 12:10; Matt. 13 : 39 ; Luke 8 : 12 ; John 8 : 44 ; 13 : 2 ; 
1 Tim. 3: 7 ; 2 Tim. 2: 26; 1 Peter 5:8; Eph. 6: 11, 12 ; 1 Tim. 
4: 1. 

R. Several inquiries here present themselves; e. g. 

1. Are the demons, with Satan at their head, fallen angels? 

An affirmative answer may be derived from some of the follow¬ 
ing passages. 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; cf. John 8: 44; 1 John 3 : 
8; Rev. 12: 9; 2 Cor. 11 : 14. 

2. Are they all doomed to eternal death ? 

So it would appear from the following allusions to their treat¬ 
ment on the part of God. Matt. 25 : 41; 2 Peter 2:4; Rev. 20 : 
2, 3, 10 ; cf. 1 Cor. 15 : 25 ; Eph. 1: 10, 21, 22 ; Col. 1: 20. 

3. Has the recovery of their forfeited state ever been possible ? 
Probably not. See 2 Peter 2:4; and Jude 6. 

4. In what did the peculiar enormity of their sin consist ? 

We are unable to say, for the Bible gives no intimations on this 
point. 

We are now to consider — The employment of angels. And — 
1. The employment of good angels. 

We find a clue to their characteristic service — 
a. In the name applied to them by sacred writers. This name, 
in Hebrew, Malak, and in Greek, HyyeXog, signifies messenger. Good 
angels are the messengers of God in a very eminent sense. 


THEOLOGY. 


77 


b. In the actions ascribed to them by the same authority. 1 
Kings 19: 5; Daniel 9: 21; 10: 13; Matt. 1 : 20; Acts 5: 19. 
To these, and a large number of kindred passages ( e.g. Matt. 2 : 13, 
19 ; Luke 1: 11, sq.; Acts 8 : 26; 12 : 7 ; 2 Kings 19: 35 ; 2 Sam. 
24 : 16 ; Psalms 91 : 12, etc.), may be added those which declare 
them to be the attendants and ministers of Jehovah. Deut. 33 : 
2 ; Psalms 68 : 18 ; Acts 7 : 53 ; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2: 2.;’ Matt. 13: 
39-41; 24 : 30, 31; 25 : 31; 1 Thes. 4: 16; 2 Thes. 1: 7-9. 

R. a. It has been inferred from several statements of the Bible, 
that particular men, or nations, or elements, are intrusted to the 
care of particular angels. Matt. 18 : 10 ; Acts 12: 15; Dan. 10: 
5, sq. and 20, 21; 12 : 1 ; Rev. 7 : 1, 2; 14 : 8; 16 : 5 ; 19:17. 

Notes. Matt. 18:10. ol ayytXui avrciv in this place may signify no more than the fact 
that Christians are the objects of angelic care. 

Acts 12: 15. On the clause, “ it is his angel," see the remarks of Prof. Hackett and 
Prof. Alexander, ad locum. 

Dan. 10: 5, 6, 21; 12: 1. A comparison of these passages with Jude 9, Zech. 3: 1, 
sq., and Rev. 12: 7, sq., leads to the belief that Michael was in some proper sense the 
guardian angel of the Jews. 

R. b. It has been inferred from several statements of Scripture, 
that the offices and honors assigned to holy angels are of different 
grades. Eph. 1 : 21 ; 3:10; Col. 1 : 16; Is. 6 : 2; Ez. 1 : 5, sq.; 
10:1, sq.; see Chr. Rev. 1852, p. 577, sq. 

R. c. It has also been inferred from the passages which speak of 
good angels as ministering spirits, that they are very numerous. 
Heb. 1 : 14. This is certain. Matt. 26 : 53 ; Heb. 12: 22; Rev. 
5: 11 ; Dan. 7: 9, 10. 

2. The employment of evil angels. This is indicated — 

a. By the names given to their chief. 1 Chron. 21: 1; Matt. 
4:1; 9: 34; Rev. 12: 9, 10. He is a slanderer and a tempter, 
and his followers must be like him. 

b. By the actions ascribed to him or to them. 1 Chron. 21:1; 
Job 1: 9, sq.; Luke 8 : 12 ; John 13 : 2; 2 Cor. 11: 14; 1 Tim. 3 : 
7 ; 4:1; 2 Tim. 2 : 26; 1 Peter 5:8; Rev. 20 : 1-3. Most of these 
passages refer to Satan ; but it is fair to presume that his subjects 
co-operate with him in seduction and misrepresentation. 

c. By taking possession of men in a peculiar manner. We 
make this a separate head, because it seems to have been limited 
to a particular period in the history of our race. These instances 
of possession teach — 

1. That evil spirits can so unite themselves to a human being 


78 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


as to control his bodily organs. Matt. 9: 32; 12: 22; Luke 11 : 
14. Dumbness and blindness. 

2. That they can thereby, in all probability, produce or aggra¬ 
vate disease and suffering. Matt. 8 : 28 ; 17 : 15, sq. ; Mark 9: 
18; 5: 3, sq.; Luke 8: 28, 29; 9: 39. Insanity, Epilepsy, Lu¬ 
nacy, Emaciation. 

3. That their presence and control are revealed by something 
characteristic, distinguishing; of which, however, we have at the 
present day no knowledge. 

4. That their usurped control over the bodily organs of men 
was not confined to those who were pre-eminently wicked. Mark 
9: 14-29. 

R. a. With reference to the demons, their removal was denom¬ 
inated a “ casting out? Matt. 8 : 16 ; 10 : 1, 8; Mark 1 : 34, 39; 
with reference to the demoniacs, a healing ; ” Matt. 15: 28 ; Luke 
6: 18; 7: 21. 

R. b. It seems that some of the Jews claimed , at least, to cast out 
demons, Matt. 12: 27; Josephus Antiq. 8, 2, 5. The language of 
Christ is most naturally understood of that which was not simply 
claimed , but really effected. 

A few queries present themselves. 

1. Are demons now permitted to take possession of individuals 
as they did in the time of Christ ? 

It is safe to reply in the negative; at least, until some positive 
evidence is presented in favor of the affirmative. 

2. Can we assign any probable reasons for the change ? 

Reply. The ends to be accomplished by allowing possessions 

may have been two, namely : To show the power and malignity 
of evil spirits, and to show the power and benevolence of Christ. 
And if so, there might be no reason for permitting them after the 
age of miracles had passed. 

3. Are the rappings, table-movings, etc. of our day the direct 
work of evil spirits ? Of. Job 1 : 12, sq. 

We do not think it necessary to suppose they are. 

4. Have evil angels any special connection with pagan deities ? 
1 Cor. 10: 20, 21; cf. 8: 4. 

5. Is there such a thing as witchcraft at the present day ? 

6. If not, can we suppose it will be suffered in time to come ? 
Rev. 20: 8. 

7. Are any evil angels closely confined by the power of God ? 
Jude 6 ; Rev. 20 : 2, 3. 



ANTHROPOLOGY. 


T9. 


PART THIRD. — ANTHROPOLOGY. 

§ I. Books of Reference. 

§ II. The Endless Existence of Man. 

§ III. The Moral Nature of Man. 

§ IV. The Sinfulness of Man. 

§ I. Books of Reference. 

Edwards, Jona. Inquiry into the Freedom of the Human Will, 
Dissertation on the Nature of Virtue, The Doctrine of Original 
Sin. Mozley, J. B. Augustinian Predestination, chapters iv. vi. 
vhi. Alexander, A. Outlines of Moral Science. McCosh, J. The 
Divine Government, Physical and Moral, Book m. sq. Stewart, 
D. Active and Moral Powers of Man, chap. vi. Taylor, N. W. 
Moral Government, Lectures vii. x. xiii. Metcalf, D. Nature, 
Foundation, and Extent of Moral Obligation. Finney, C. G. Lec¬ 
tures on Systematic Theology, iv. xiv. xv. xvii. xxvii. xxxvm. sq. 
Muller, J. On the Doctrine of Sin ; see an Abstract of this able work 
in Bib. Sac. vols. v. and vn. Young, J. Evil not of God. Tho- 
luck, F. A. D. Guido and Julius ; or, Sin and the Propitiation. Shel¬ 
don, D. N. Sin and Redemption, Sermons hi. iv. v. vi. Bellamy, 
J. On the Wisdom of God in the Permission of Sin, n. p. 6, sq. 
Hodge, C. On the Doctrine of Imputation, Princeton Essays. 

§ II. The Endless Existence of Man. 

The term Man will be used by us to signify whatever is essen¬ 
tial to human personality. 

A rigid analysis and arrangement of topics would require us to 
give in detail, at this point, the proof of man’s endless existence; 
but it will be more convenient to give this proof when we reach 
the last part of our course, Eschatology. We shall therefore now 
specify the chief lines of argument, without attempting any proper 
discussion of the topic. In proof, then, of this doctrine, it may be 
urged — 

1. That the mental powers of man are adapted to such an ex¬ 
istence. 


80 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


2. That his moral powers are adapted to such an existence. 

3. That his spiritual sensibilities are adapted to such an ex¬ 
istence. 

4. That his best aspirations point to such an existence. 

5. That the general belief of mankind points to such an ex¬ 
istence. 

6. That the Scriptures predict such an existence. 

§ III. The Moral Nature of Man. 

In every part of our course, but in this more than almost any 
other, we should appropriate the language of Paul in 1 Cor. 13: 
12; “Now we see through a glass, darkly.” We see, perhaps, but 
a single aspect of truth; and must await the future life for a com¬ 
plete view of it. 

It is our purpose to exhibit certain facts pertaining to our moral 
nature, without attempting to reconcile them. 

It may be observed — 

1. That all the workings of a human spirit may be described, 
generically, as intellectual, emotional, and voluntary. 

2. That the moral character of a human spirit may be discovered 
in each and all of these workings. 

3. That many regard the moral tastes or propensities as under¬ 
lying everything else in our moral character. 

4. That others make the will altogether fundamental and con¬ 
trolling, — the proper author of all moral propensities. 

Those who advocate the former of these opinions, appeal in its 
defence — 

a. To conscience. We spontaneously regard our propensities 
and passions, it is said, as right or wrong, blameless or culpable, 
without regard to their origin, whether voluntary or involuntary. 
It is enough that they are ours, native, spontaneous, and not for¬ 
eign nor forced. We also have a dim, but deep and growing con¬ 
sciousness, that sin is not wholly avoidable by us in our present 
state, that our moral strength is gone and our will enslaved to evil. 
Yet we do not find in this any relief from guilt. Our invincible 
repugnance to holy moral effort unnerves , but does not excuse us. 

b. To reason. We are unable to conceive of a motiveless voli¬ 
tion, an act of bare will. Such an act would seem to be an effect 
without a cause, and would teach that man is given up to the ca¬ 
price of a mysterious power which may, or may not, represent his 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


81 


character and spirit. Says Sir William Hamilton, “We cannot 
possibly conceive the existence of a voluntary activity indepen¬ 
dently of all feeling; for voluntary conation is a faculty which can 
only be determined to energy through a pain or pleasure, — through 
an estimate of the relative worth of objects.” p. 130, Metaphys¬ 
ics , cf. p. 567. 

c. To fact. Both experience and observation prove to us that 
human actions spring from human propensities. Our natural 
power to choose the right is enervated by selfishness. Besides, 
the universality of sin among men is irreconcilable with any self- 
determining action of the will, conceived as distinct from the affec¬ 
tions, and, indeed, with any moral action of it in view of rational 
considerations merely. “Were the will,” says Locke, substantially, 
“ determined by views of good as presented to the understanding , 
it could never get loose from the infinite, eternal joys of heaven, 
once proposed and considered possible.” 

d. To God's Word. See John 6: 44, 65; 15:5; 1 Cor. 1:9; 
Phil. 2 : 13 ; James 1: 14, 15; Jer. 31 : 18. 

Notes. John 6: 44. “ No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent 
me, draw him.” Says Augustine, “Noli te cogitare invitum trahi; trahitur animus, 
et amore.” Says Calvin, “ Nemo unquam sponte ad Christum accedere poterit, nisi 
quern Deus Spiritu suo praeveniet.” Says Beza, “ Volumus, quia datum est, velimus.” 
Says Alford, “the word ‘draw’ refei's to the Father’s influence, who alone can give 
the desire to come to Christ.” 

Phil. 2: 13. “ For it is God which woi’keth in you both to will and to do of his good 

pleasure.” Says Augustine, “ Deus facit ut faciamus, prcebendo vires efficacissimas vol¬ 
untatis Says Calvin, “ Fatemur nos a natura habere voluntatem: sed quoniam pec- 
cati corruptione mala est, tunc bona esse incipit, quum reformata est a Deo. Nec 
dicimus hominem quicquam boni facere, nisi volentem; sed tunc quum voluntas regi- 
tur a Spiritu Dei.” Says Ellicott, “ Of these the first, ‘ to will,’ is due to the inworking 
influence of sanctifying grace, gratia prceveniens, to which the first and feeblest mo¬ 
tion of the better will is to be ascribed; the second, ‘ to do,’ to the gratia co-operans , 
by the assistance of which, ‘ non per vires nativas sed dativas,’ we strive to perform 
the will of God.” Says Alford, “ We owe both the will to do good, and the power, to 
his indwelling Spirit.” 

These passages certainly appear to ascribe all holy action in man 
to the divine working. They trace faith and every right volition 
and act to God. 

Again, those who advocate the latter view, appeal — 

«. To consciousness. We are conscious, it is said, that our 
moral action is free; that we are able, in each particular instance, 
to do right and refrain from wrong. Having decided in favor of 
evil, we are conscious that we could have decided otherwise. 

11 


§2 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Hence, moral character resides in the will, — in the power of self- 
determination. 

R. This testimony of consciousness proves at most only our 
freedom ; that moral character is rooted in the will, is made possi¬ 
ble by this testimony, and that is all. But all things being precisely 
the same, in any instance, except the volition, we are not, I think, 
distinctly conscious that it might have been different. 

b. To reason. Ability and responsibility are correlative and co¬ 
extensive. Hence, no one can be a moral agent, except in so far 
as he is the author of his own character as well as conduct. This 
being granted, it follows that bare will, — the power of contrary 
choice, — the ability to originate good and evil states of heart, — 
underlies personal character, and is the true source of virtue and 
sin. Says Pelagius, “ If sin cannot be avoided, it is not sin; if it 
can be avoided, man can live without sin.” Again, “If sin is of 
necessity, it is not sin; if it is of the will, it can be avoided.” 
Again, “ If man ought to be without sin, he is able to be so; if he 
is not able to be so, then he ought not to be so; and if he ought 
not to be without sin, then he ought to be with sin ; and so sin is 
no more sin, for it ought to be.” Again, “ If man is unable by 
nature to be without sin, sin is not sin; if he is unable by will, 
will can be very easily changed by will.” Apud Aug. De Perf. 
Justitice , c. 2, 3, 6. 

R. Everything depends on the meaning of “ ability.” God is 
physically able to sin; Satan is physically able to love and do 
right; but neither of them has a disposition , or can be conceived 
to produce in himself a disposition, to do thus. There is in philo¬ 
sophical language a moral cannot , which consists in a simple “ will 
not /” the want of ability is a want of inclination. 

c. To fact. The fall of man is said to establish this view. Our 
first parents were themselves the authors of their great sin. If so, 
their emotional nature, which was created pure, was subsequently 
perverted by their own absolute choice. They created moral evil. 

R. The fall of man proves that one’s good moral affections may 
be perverted by voluntary action ; but it hardly proves that evil 
propensities may be changed to good by such action, or that gen¬ 
erally the desires of the heart are controllable by the will. Prin. 
Theol. Es. p. 390. 

d. To God’s Word. SeeEz. 18, passim ; (cf. 36: 26 ; Acts 2: 38.) 

R. These passages prove that men are responsible for their own 


ANTHKOPOLOGY. 


83 


sinful actions ; but they do not, except by inference, show that the 
will controls the affections. 

Without being able to adopt with entire confidence either of 
the views thus advocated, we believe the former contains more 
truth and less error than the latter: — 

1. As being more nearly in harmony with man’s experience in 
his fallen state. 

2. As being more accordant with the doctrines of election, re¬ 
generation, etc. 

3. As being wiser in its aim. It is more important for us to 
know and affirm the moral ruin of sinners than it is to vindicate 
the moral government of God. 

Perhaps the following statements will comprise the principal 
facts within our reach on this difficult topic. 

1. A moral being is one who has at least power to discriminate 
between right and wrong in feeling and conduct, between that 
which he ought to be or to do, and that which he ought not to be or 
to do; and who has, consciously, power to act out his real charac¬ 
ter without coercion. 

R. Hence, God, who is absolutely holy, and Satan who may be 
entirely perverse, are alike moral beings. Says Mozley, “ The high¬ 
est and the perfect state of the will, then, is a state of necessity; 
and the power of choice, so far from being essential to a true and 
genuine will, is its weakness and defect. What can be a greater 
sign of an imperfect and immature state of the will than that, with 
good and evil before it, it should be in suspense which to do ? 
That it should take the worse alternative is its prostration; but 
that it should be ever undetermined is weakness.” p. 73. Again, 
“ If we measure the merit of an action by the degree in which it 
is in advance of the general condition of the agent, then undoubt¬ 
edly an action which proceeds from a will determined necessarily 
to good, has no merit, because it is simply on a level with, and not 
at all in advance of such a will. On the other hand, an action 
which proceeds from a will which has to exert a power of choice 
in order to compass it, has merit, because it is in advance of such 
a will; inasmuch as the certainty of an action done is in advance 
upon the mere power of doing it.A will which acts of neces¬ 

sity for good is the very strongest will on the side of good; and, 
therefore, compared with the ability of this agent, a good act is a 
little result. A will which has to exert a power of choice, and use 



84 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


struggle and effort, is a weaker will; and therefore a good action, 
as compared with the ability of this agent, is a greater result. The 
superior merit, then, of a good act, in this case, is arrived at by 
comparing it with the weakness of the agent; and it is a merit, 
therefore, which tells against the perfection of the will, and not in 
its favor; the act is better because the agent is worse.” pp. 74-75. 

2. Moral beings generally have propensities or tastes which are 
right or wrong according to their objects and strength. These spir¬ 
itual tastes are permanent, and may be called an inward moral 
character. Volition usually indorses, strengthens, and expresses 
this moral character. 

3. In certain cases, as that of an original apostasy, volition must 
in some way unduly strengthen and so morally change the existing 
taste which it indorses and expresses. This fatal volition may have 
been, in Adam and Eve, simply a consent to entertain a denial of 
God’s word, or a desire for knowledge attainable only by disobedi¬ 
ence. We do not, however, profess to understand the process of 
an original apostasy, or even the possibility of it. Cf. Aug. D. C. 
D., B. xn. c. vi. and vn. Edwards , n. p. 385, note. 

4. Hence, virtue or sin cannot be traced wholly to one’s emo¬ 
tional nature or moral taste. It is increased, if not changed, by 
the power which carries it forth. 

§ IV. The Sinfulness of Man. 

In this Section, we propose to consider the following topics, in 
so far as they relate to the human race: — 

i. The Fact of Sin. n. The Nature of Sin. m. The Extent of 
Sin. iv. The Degree of Sin. v. The Penalty of Sin. vi. The 
Results of Sin. 

i. The Fact of Sin. We have not heretofore given this topic 
a distinct place, but have rather taken for granted the existence of 
sin in our race. There are, however, at the present day, so many 
who deny, expressly or virtually, the possibility of moral evil, that 
it seems desirable to make the fact of sin a separate topic. 

This fact we hold to be established by the following evidence : — 

1. The testimony of God's Word. It need scarcely be said, 
that the Scriptures uniformly and emphatically teach the existence 
of sin, strictly so called, in our race. It is, therefore, surprising 
that any man who accepts the Bible as a revelation from God 
should permit himself to question this fact. 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


85 


2. The testimony of mankind. Civil government, law and pen¬ 
alty, rest always on the possibility and indeed the existence of 
moral evil in society. No man has probably lost entirely his sense 
of right and wrong in the conduct of others. The fiercest op- 
pugners of God’s right to punish, do not hesitate to treat their 
fellow-men as guilty and worthy of unmeasured abuse. 

3. The testimony of conscience . Every man is conscious of a 
distinction between right and wrong, and also of having done 
wrong himself. He knows by experience the difference between 
moral good and moral evil. Thus the existence of sin is proved 
by his own conscience. 

Better evidence it is impossible to find for any fact than such as 
we have now adduced, — the testimony of Scripture, of mankind 
generally, and of conscience; and it is a sound principle of philos¬ 
ophy that logical difficulties have no force against such evidence, 
especially that of consciousness. 

Yet the fact of human sinfulness has been denied — 

1. On the ground of law and necessity. Every being, it is said, 
has its nature; and the laws and contents of that nature determine 
its action. Our sense of freedom, of responsibility, of guilt, is de¬ 
lusive ; for these are all logical absurdities, impossibilities. This is 
the doctrine of the Positive Philosophy. 

2. On the ground of divine predestination. God, it is said, has 
fixed all events by his purpose and agency; all must therefore take 
place as he has determined; and hence there can be no human 
freedom, responsibility, or guilt. This objection is often urged by 
those who do not wish to receive the gospel. 

3. On the ground of hereditary depravity. Men, it is said, are 
born with a disabled moral nature, and cannot therefore be blame¬ 
worthy for what they do. No man, but Adam, can be held really 
responsible for his character and conduct; for these were deter¬ 
mined by the apostasy. 

R. a. All these objections have been set aside by the remark 
that logical difficulties have no force against the testimony of con¬ 
sciousness. 

R. b. They all run up to the grand difficulty, — How can a crea¬ 
ture be responsible ? How can an effect have anything original in 
itself? — anything not traceable to its cause? 

R. c. This difficulty is not surmounted by any theory of the 
freedom of the will; for freedom of the will contains potentially 


86 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


all which it can accomplish, and what it contains is an effect refer- 
rible to a higher cause. 

ii. The Nature of Sin. It may be remarked at the outset that 
virtue and vice must be referred to the soul rather than to the body. 
Matt. 15 : 19. The passages which have been thought to favor a 
different view will be given hereafter, but it may be said in antici¬ 
pation, that they are consistent with our position. In considering 
the nature of sin, we shall examine several definitions which have 
been thought to express that nature. 

1. Sin is want of conformity in character or conduct with the 
law of God. 1 John 3:4; Matt. 13: 41; Rom. 6: 19; 2 Cor. 6: 
14; Rom. 2: 25; 5: 14; Heb. 2: 2. 

R. a. This statement is of course true; for all sin is forbidden 
by the law of God, and all disregard of the law of God is sin. 
Otherwise the divine law is not a perfect law. 

R. b. It is apparently supported by many of the terms used in 
the Bible to designate sin. See E. g. dyu^rla from tiyc* — to 
miss, err, from a mark or way. naydSucrig from Tuxyatfah'w, — to 
overstep, transgress, na^axoi] from nuyaxovoi, — to hear amiss, to 
neglect to hear, hdixla from udiyJw ,— to do wrong, act unjustly, 
nldvr] from nlavdat, — to go astray, dvogla, — lawlessness, violation 
of law. TtuQunuofxa from naQcmlnnx >, — to fall aside. • The Hebrew 
terms are of similar import. 

R. c. It has been adopted by many theologians as a proper defi¬ 
nition of sin. E. g. Aug. De Civ. Dei, L. xiv. c. 12. In another 
place he defines sin as “concupitum, dictum, factum contra legem 
Dei.” Melancthon, Loci Theol. De Pec. Initio, says it is “ defectus 
vel actio pugnans cum lege Dei.” Turretin, L. iv. Q. i. 3, says it 
is, “ inclinatio, actio, vel omissio pugnans cum lege Dei, vel carens 
rectitudine legali debita in esse.” Gerhard defines it thus: “ dis- 
crepantia, aberratio, deflexio a lege.” Calovius : “ Illegalitas seu 
difformitas a lege.” Baier: “ Carentia conformitatis cum lege.” 
Buddeus: “violatio seu transgressio legis divinae.” Baumgarten: 
“ Transgressio legis seu absentia conformitatis cum lege.” 

R. d. Yet this is but a formal definition of sin; and it would 
be no less correct if the whole law of God were simply, “ thou 
shalt do no sin,” or “thou shalt do perfectly right.” We hold that 
sin is forbidden by the law of God, because it is wrong, and not 
that it is wrong because it is forbidden by the law of God. The 
definition which we have given does not therefore indicate the real 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


87 


nature and evil of sin, but rather an outward mark or character¬ 
istic of it. 

2. Sin is selfishness; and selfishness is making self the centre 
of thought and action , is putting self in the place which belongs 
to God. (a) John 5: 80; 7: 18; 8:50; Matt. 20: 28; 26:39; 
Rom. 15:3; (b) Rom. 14 : 7, 8 ; Gal. 2: 20 ; 2 Cor. 5:15; Phil. 
2 : 3-8, 21; 1 Cor. 10 : 24, 33; Luke 14 : 26 ; John 12 : 25 ; 1 Cor. 
13: 5. 

R. a. Whether this definition gives us the real nature of sin, as 
a positive working principle in the heart of man, may be doubt¬ 
ful ; but it seems to me that it approaches very near the reality, if 
it does not grasp it. See Bib. Sac. v. p. 499. 

R. b. It is however possible that sin is not a unit; that no com¬ 
mon element pervades all its forms; no one object takes the central 
place which belongs to God. Certainly, many acts appear to be 
sinful only by defect. Is that defect, that want of love to God, 
traceable to selfishness? 

3. Sin is pride, self-sufficiency , ambition. Luke 19: 14; 1 Tim. 
3: 6. This definition is too narrow. Pride is not the common 
principle of all varieties of sin. Sensuality, for instance, cannot 
be explained as a special development of this principle. But there 
is no difficulty in referring pride to selfishness. 

R. Says Augustine, in favor of the last definition, “ In occulto 
autem mali esse cceperunt, ut in apertam inobedientiam laberen- 
tur. 'Non enim ad malum opus perveniretur, nisi praecessisset 
mala voluntas. Porro malae voluntatis initium quod potuit esse 
nisi superbia. Initium enim omnis peccati superbia est. Quid est 
autem superbia, nisi perversae celsitudinis appetitus. Perversa 
enim celsitudo est, deserto eo cui debet animus inhaerere principio, 
sibi quodam modo fieri atque esse principium. Hoc fit, cum sibi 
nimis placet .” 

4. Sin is concupiscence ; and concupiscence is inordinate desire of 
any kind. Rom. 7: 8, 14, 18, 23, 24; 8: 6, sq.; Gal. 5: 16, sq.; 
Rom. 4:1; Phil. 3:4; Col. 2:18; also Rom. 1: 18-23; (cf. 1 : 
24, sq.;) 1 Cor. 3 : 1-4; 1: 26 ; 2 Cor. 1: 12. 

This definition is objectionable — 

a. Because it gives undue prominence to sensuality. 

b. Because it does not refer all sin to one principle. 

c. Because it runs into the first and merely formal definition. 

R. In the passages cited above, Paul uses the term flesh, &c. to 


88 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


designate man in his unrenewed state, or in so far as he is not 
ruled by the Spirit of God. 

hi. The Extent of Sin. Are all men sinful, young and old, 
taught and untaught, sane and insane, is the question to be an¬ 
swered in this place. In support of the doctrine of universal sin¬ 
fulness or depravity, we may appeal — 

1. To the Word of God. 

a. As asserting this fact directly. 1 Kings 8 : 46; Eccl. 7: 20 ; 
Rom. 3: 9, sq. 

It is plain that all men capable of sinning are declared by such 
language sinful; but it may perhaps be doubtful whether little 
children are embraced in the import of these passages. 

b. As asserting it indirectly — 

1. By declaring that natural death is included in the penalty of 
sin. Gen. 2 : 17; Rom. 5 : 12, sq.; 1 Cor. 15 : 21, 22, 45, sq.; cf. 
Ez. 18: 20. 

2. By declaring that Christ suffered in behalf of all, the just for 
the unjust. 1 John 2 : 2 ; 1 Tim. 2:6; 4: 10 ; Heb. 2 : 9 ; 1 Peter 
3: 18. 

3. By teaching that man’s moral nature is vitiated at birth. John 
3 : 6; 1 Cor. 7: 14 ; Eph. 2:3; Rom. 5 : 12, sq.; 1 Cor. 15 : 22 ; cf. 
Ps. 51:7; 58:4; 143:2; Job 14:4; 15:12-16; 25:4; Gen. 8 : 
21; 18 : 23-33 ; 1 Sam. 15 : 3 ; Ez. 9 : 4, sq. ; also Prov. 21 : 8 ; 
Eccl. 9:3; Matt. 16: 23 ; 1 Cor. 3: 3 ; 1 Peter 4:2; John 7:7; 
8: 23; 14: 17; 15: 18, 19; 17: 9, 14; 1 John 3: 13; 4: 5; 5: 
19; Rev. 14 : 3, 4. 

2. To Reason. The consciousness of moral evil in ourselves, 
and the discovery of it in all others of whom we have considera¬ 
ble knowledge, justify us in concluding it to be characteristic of 
man in his present state. Says Ovid: “ Quod licet, ingratum est; 
quod non licet, acrius urit.” Amor. n. El. 19, 3: cf. Prov. 9: 17. 
“Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata.” Id. in. El. 
4, 17. 

“ Si possem, sanior essem, 

Sed trahit invitam nova vis; aliudque cupido, 

Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora proboque, 

Deteriora sequor.” Id. Met. vn. 18, sq. 

Says Seneca, “ Peccavimus omnes, alii gravia, alii leviora ; alii 
ex destinato, alii forte impulsi, aut aliena nequitia ablati; alii in 
bonis consiliis parum fortiter stetimus et innocentiam inviti ac 
renitentes perdidimus. Nec delinquimus tantum, sed usque ad 
extremum aevi delinquemus.” Clem. c. 6. cf. c. 23. 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


89 


Yet the same writer says: “Non licet, inquam, ire recta via: 
trahunt in pravum parentes, trahunt servi. Nemo errat uni sibi, 
sed dementiam spargit in proximos accepitque invicem. Et ideo 
in singulis vitia populorum sunt, quia ilia populus dedit. . . . 

Erras enim, si existimas nobiscum vitia nasci: supervenerant, in- 
gesta sunt. Itaque monitionibus crebris opiniones, quae nos cir- 
cumsonant, repellantur. Nielli nos vitio natura conciliat: ilia in- 
tegros ac liberos genuit ” L. xv. Ep. 2, 94. 

Against the doctrine now presented several objections are wont 
to be urged. JE. g. 

1. All sin consists of sinning / it is neither more nor less than 

wrong action. 0 

Reply. This seems to be a mistake. One may sin by inaction, 
and also by involuntary action. For instance: A leant of trust in 
God, and love to God, is the chief sin of mankind. Is this want 
of a given disposition properly characterized as voluntary action ? 
Or is it sinless in itself, though the consequence and index of a 
prior voluntary act which was sinful? We answer both questions 
in the negative; for consciousness compels us so to do. Again, 
much of human sinfulness consists of lust, hatred, covetousness, 
etc. Lust is adultery ; hatred is murder; covetousness is idolatry. 
Can it, then, be said that envy, hatred, covetousness, and the like, 
are not in themselves sinful ? Or, can it be said that these malev¬ 
olent affections are traceable to some prior voluntary action to 
which the guilt really cleaves ? Consciousness replies in the neg¬ 
ative. But the objection now before us rests upon another, viz :— 

2. It cannot be right to treat a being as sinful because of his in¬ 
voluntary dispositions or actions. 

Reply. So it seems to us, when we reason from the premise, 
that ability and responsibility are correlative and coextensive. 
But this premise, as commonly understood, may be called in 
question. 

a. Because the various faculties of the soul do not agree in 
affirming it. Our moral intuitions seem to deny it, while our un¬ 
derstanding affirms it. The former pronounce every malicious 
desire sinful, and the evidence of a sinful nature; the latter denies 
this to be so, except when the desire springs from voluntary 
action. 

b. Because, strictly interpreted, it utterly destroys moral char¬ 
acter as a permanent thing in God and men. By attaching right 

12 


90 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


and wrong to the will, apart from the disposition, it excludes the 
possibility of confirmed virtue. Origen’s view. 

R. In one sense of the term ability, it is perhaps coextensive 
with responsibility: i. e. a man is certainly able to do, to neglect, to 
feel, to desire, as he in fact does; no ab extra coercion effects these 
conditions or motions of his mind; they are spontaneous, a se ipso 
if not deliberate and voluntary. Says Prof. Shedd: “ In the Latin 
anthropology, the conception of voluntary action was simply and 
only the power of seZ/’-determination. That which is se^f-moved 
is voluntary, by virtue of this bare fact of se{/*-motion. Neither 
the presence nor the absence of a power to the contrary can de¬ 
stroy the existing fact that the will-is moving spontaneously and 
without external compulsion; and hence the power to the con¬ 
trary did not enter as a sine qua non into the Latin idea of moral 
agency. It might be lost, and actually had been, and the will still 
be a self-determined faculty. In the Greek anthropology, on the 
contrary, voluntariness was tn-determination. The will, whether 
fallen or unfallen, at all times and in all conditions, could either 
choose or refuse the same object. But that it might do so, it must 
be itself in a state of equilibrium or indifference, and not actually 
committed or determined either one way or the other.” Essays , 
p. 248-9. 

c. Because it seems no more unjust to treat one as guilty for 
sinful propensities than for actions which certainly flow from such 
propensities. 


Appendix. 

It will be proper to take some notice in this place of the doctrine 
of imputation. For this doctrine is applied to the sin of Adam no 
less than to the righteousness of Christ. 

We have seen that all men are born with a vitiated moral 
nature, and are, from the first, “ children of wrath.” What, then, 
is the scriptural doctrine of imputation ? And does it explain or 
justify to human reason the fact now ascertained? For a knowl¬ 
edge of the doctrine we are referred chiefly to the following pas¬ 
sages : Rom. 5 : 12-19; 1 Cor. 1 : 30; 2 Cor. 5: 21. 

The parallel drawn between Adam and Christ in the first of 
these texts has been variously understood. It has been thought — 

1. That Adam and Christ are here set forth as typical per¬ 
sonages merely , illustrating the divinely established connection 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


91 


between sin and death, righteousness and life. This view is 
strictly Pelagian, and is refuted by the following considera¬ 
tions : — 

a. It denies the reality of such a connection between our sinful¬ 
ness and the fall of Adam as the Scriptures plainly assert. E\ g. 
Rom. 5: 12, 18, 19. 

It denies the reality of such a connection between the right¬ 
eousness of believers and the work of Christ as the Scriptures also 
plainly assert. E. g. Rom. 5: 9, 17, 18, 19 ; 10: 4 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 30 ; 
2 Cor. 5: 21. 

c. It makes the universality of sin in our race unaccountable. 
Cf. The work of J. Edwards, Sen. on Original /Sin. 

2. That Adam and Christ are regarded as the sources , respec¬ 
tively, of sin and death, righteousness and life. The sin of all who 
descend by natural generation from Adam was involved in his 
sin; the righteousness of all who are born by spiritual regeneration 
was involved in the atoning righteousness of Christ. Says Ben- 
gel : “ Omnes peccarunt, Adamo peccante.” “ Death passed 
through,” says Philippi, “unto all men, because they all sinned 
when Adam sinned, because in the sin of Adam their own sin was 
included.” So also Meyer and Alford, in substance. Augustine, 
the great defender of this view, uses the following language: 
“Deus enim creavit hominem rectum, naturarum Auctor, non 
utique vitiorum; sed sponte depravatus justeque damnatus, de- 
pravatos damnatosque generavit. Omnes enim fuimus in illo uno, 
quando omnes fuimus ille unus, qui per feminam lapsus est in pecca- 
tum, quaB de illo facta est ante peccatum. Nondum erat nobis 
singillatim creata et distributa forma, in qua singuli viveremus, 
sed jam natura erat seminalis, ex qua propagaremur, quia scilicet 
propter peccatum vitiata et vinculo mortis obstricta, justeque dam- 
nata, non alterius conditionis homo ex homine nasceretur.” De 
Civ. Dei , xiii. 14. 

According to this view every one of Adam’s posterity comes 
into the world with a disposition to indorse the conduct of Adam, 
and is already, so to speak, over the moral Rubicon, committed 
to rebellion. God, therefore, who sees moral action in its fountain 
or germ, looks on every sinner at birth as virtually guilty of 
Adam’s sin, and treats him accordingly. The primeval apostasy 
is imputed to them in the same way and on the same principle as 
“ all the righteous blood shed upon the earth ” was imputed to the 


92 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


contemporaries of Christ. Matt. 23: 29-36; Luke 11: 47-51. 
Of. Ex. 34: 7; Ps. 103: 17, 18. It is, to be sure, impossible for 
them to repeat the original apostasy, but they consent to it, in¬ 
dorse it, and repeat it so far as circumstances will allow; and God 
takes the will for the deed. Says Jonathan Edwards: “The first 
being of an evil disjDosition in the heart of a child of Adam, 
whereby he is disposed to approve of the sin of his first father, as 
fully as he himself approved of it when he committed it, or so far 
as to imply a full and perfect consent of heart to it, I think, is not 
to be looked on as a consequence of the imputation of that first 
sin, any more than the full consent of Adam’s own heart, in the 
act of sinning; which was not consequent on the imputation of 
his sin to himself, but rather prior to it in the order of nature. 
Indeed, the derivation of the evil disposition to the hearts of 
Adam’s posterity, or rather the coexistence of the evil disposition, 
implied in Adam’s first rebellion, in the root and branches, is a 
consequence of the union that the wise author of the world has 
established between Adam and his posterity; but not properly a 
consequence of the imputation of his sin ; nay, rather antecedent to 
it, as it was in Adam himself. The first depravity of heart, and 
the imputation of that sin, are both the consequences of that 
established union; but yet, in such order that the evil disposition 
is first, and the charge of guilt consequent, as it was in the case of 
Adam himself, (ii. p. 482-3. Cf. Note.) 

R. a. This view is known as the doctrine of mediate imputa¬ 
tion. Through the depravity of mankind, a consequence of their 
derivation from Adam, his act of sin is charged upon them. 

R. b. This view does not profess to clear up the morality or 
righteousness of bringing a race of beings into existence from a 
depraved source with a depraved disposition. It accepts the fact 
and believes it righteous, because it is the act of a righteous God. 

3. That Adam and Christ are here set forth as federal heads or 
representatives; the sin or disobedience of the former being 
imputed to all men, and the righteousness or obedience of the 
latter being imputed to all the elect. This we understand to be 
the Old School view, and it gives more prominence than any 
other to the doctrine of imputation. It is, however, liable to some 
objections. 

a. It does not, as commonly presented, take sufficient account of 
the real moral connection between Adam and his descendants, 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


93 


Christ and his people. Cf. John 3: 6; 15: 1, sq.; 1 Cor. 
12: 3. 

b. It assigns, we think, a very unusual meaning to \mqtov 
(Rom. 5 : 12), viz: have become guilty , i. e. have been regarded 
and treated as sinners. The passages which are cited by Dr. 
Hodge to prove this use of the verb, viz: Gen. 44: 32; 1 Kings 
1 : 21, are very different from the one before us, and do not really 
justify the definition assumed. 

c. It makes justification logically prior to regeneration. For 
the order which it recognizes is this : on the one hand, imputation, 
condemnation, death; and on the other, imputation, justification, 
life, — death beginning in unbelief or alienation from God, and 
life beginning in faith or regeneration. But this order in the 
second case is unscriptural. Faith is represented in a great num¬ 
ber of passages as the condition or prerequisite , but never as the 
effect of justification. 

R. a. This view is known as the doctrine of immediate imputa¬ 
tion. It regards our native depravity as penal , and not as an un¬ 
explained consequence of our derivation from Adam; and if penal, 
it must be the penalty of Adam’s sin, as it is not the penalty for 
any sin committed by us. Alienation of heart from God is there¬ 
fore the punishment of a sin committed for us, and not by us. 

R. b. We have no confidence in the arguments from reason fre¬ 
quently urged against this view. It neither increases nor dimin¬ 
ishes the mystery which encompasses the fact of hereditary sinful¬ 
ness. If we are “by nature children of wrath,” it matters not, to 
human reason , in its present state , whether we are such because 
charged with the sin of Adam and punished with a sinful nature, 
or because inheriting from Adam a sinful nature, and punished for 
his sin as approved by that nature. 

R. c. Indeed, we may go a step further, and say that it matters 
very little to human reason in its present state, whether a man be 
held responsible for the sin of another person which has disposed his 
own heart to evil, or for the sin of his own heart thus disposed to 
evil, and sinning because thus disposed. 

R. d. Still further, it matters little to human reason, in my 
judgment, whether a man be the author or not the author of the 
depravity for the working of which he is held responsible. If it be 
unjust to hold men, born with a depraved nature, responsible for 
their sins, it must have been unjust to hold Adam responsible for 
any sin except the first, by which his nature was depraved. His 


94 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


inability or indisposition to be holy was the same as theirs. His 
actual state and conduct differed in no conceivable respect from 
theirs. The difference between him and them lies wholly in his 
first act of apostasy. 

R. e. In fact, human reason is unable to perceive the justice of 
God in holding any creature responsible for moral action. For if 
that action springs out of the faculties and susceptibilities of the 
creature as acted upon by the circumstances in which he is placed, 
then it is logically traceable to God; but if it does not, then we 
have an effect without a cause, which is unthinkable. 

R. f. Nay, more, it is impossible for human reason to show that 
there can be moral responsibility in either the Creator or his crea¬ 
tures. For our intellect affirms that every act or event must have 
a cause or reason for its existence ; that every cause virtually con¬ 
tains its effect, and is responsible for it, if there be responsibility at 
all; and that no cause can be responsible in any way for what it 
does not originate. But God did not originate his own moral dis¬ 
position ; hence, he is worthy of neither praise nor blame as a 
moral being. Man does not originate his moral disposition ; hence 
he also is neither blameworthy nor praiseworthy for it and its 
action. 

R. g. Finally, it is impossible to demonstrate rationally that any 
being can have the power of choice to the contrary; but even if 
man has that power, yet so conditioned as never to be put forth, 
we cannot see that it relieves materially the justice of God, by 
showing that man is the proper author of his own sin. The evil 
forces of his nature are practically superior to the good, and so his 
wrong doing is certain, though not strictly necessary. 

In spite, however, of all these difficulties, we are undeniably 
moral beings, accountable for all our depravity of heart and unholy 
action. Conscience pronounces every one to be sinful who, know¬ 
ing right and wrong, dislikes the one and prefers the other, neg¬ 
lects the former and does the latter. And, whatever power or free¬ 
dom of icill may be necessary to responsible moral action, this 
certainly man possesses. 

The following views of imputation, etc. have been held : — 

1. Imputation direct of Adam’s sin. Old School. 

2. Imputation indirect of Adam’s sin. Augustinian . 

3. Imputation virtual of Adam’s sin, i. e. of sin flowing from na¬ 
tive depravity. New School. 


ANTHROPOLOGY. 


95 


4. Imputation of personal sin according to power. Arminian. 

5. Imputation of no sin at all to the creature. Infidel. 

iv. The Degree of Sin in Man. 

We affirm — 1. That all men have virtually trangressed the 
entire law of God. Matt. 22 : 37-40 ; James 2:10; 1 John 3: 15; 
4 : 20 ; Gal. 3 : 10. 

2. That unregenerate men are totally depraved — 

a. For they have no love to God , which is piety. Rom. 8:7; 
1 John 4 : 7. 

b. For selfishness rules in their hearts and conduct. Phil. 2 : 21. 

c. Because hatred, too, reigns in their hearts. Rom. 8: 7. 

“ It is a rule in morals,” says Mozley, “that the morality of the 
man must precede the morality of the action; that some general 
condition must be fulfilled in the agent’s character before any par¬ 
ticular act can be pronounced good in him; this morality of the 
man, the fulfilment of this general condition, is the foundation. 
One type, then, of a faulty character, is that of a character good at 
the foundation, and only failing in degree; another is that of a 
character bad at the foundation. The fruits of the former are 
solid as far as they go ; but the apparently good fruits of a funda¬ 
mentally corrupt character are hollow, and are not real virtues. 
Such a character may display, for example, affection to individuals, 
generosity upon occasions, or courage, or industry; but upon such 
a foundation these are not virtues.” Page 126. 

Says De Wette: “ There is a very wide distinction between the 
faults and weaknesses of a truly virtuous man, and the transgres¬ 
sions and vices of him who has in himself certain good qualities as 
natural gifts or mere habits.” Again: “We are accustomed, in 
common life, to speak of manifold virtues, and to deem that some 
may exist without the others, and that even many are compatible 
with certain vices, failings, and immoralities; but such virtues are 
hardly genuine.” Practical Ethics , pp. 102, 101. 

3. That all men are not equally sinful. Prov. 29: 1; Jer. 13 : 
23; Luke 12: 48; John 3: 19; 15: 22, 24; 2 Tim. 3: 13; Rom. 
2: 12; 4: 15; 5: 13; 1 Cor. 14: 20. Of. Matt. 18: 3; 19: 14; 
Mark 10 : 14; Luke 18 : 16. 

v. The Penalty of Sin. 

According to the Word of God this appears to consist — 

1. In spiritual death, or a loss of fellowship with God, attended 
by shame, dissatisfaction, and remorse. Gen. 2: 17. {Of. 1 John 


96 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


3 ; 14.) Eph. 2 : 1; 4: 18 ; Matt 8 : 22 ; Rev. 3:1. (Cf. John 
11: 25; Heb. 6 : 1; 9: 14.) 

Says Augustine: “ Mors igitur animae fit, cum earn deserit Deus: 
sicut corporis, cum id deserit anima. . . . Vivit itaque anima ex 
Deo, cum vivit bene; non enim potest bene vivere, nisi Deo in se 
operante quod bonum est.” L. xiii. c. 2. 

2. In eternal death; which is spiritual death aggravated and 
endless. Rom. 6 : 23 ; 1 John 5 : 16; Matt. 25 : 46; Rev. 2 : 11; 
20: 6, 14; 21: 8; Heb. 2: 15. 

3. In natural death ; which is, however, not so much perhaps 
the proper penalty of sin as the shadow and attendant of the 
penalty. 

R. That which is penal in death, whether spiritual, eternal, or 
natural, is on the one hand loss of good, and on the other positive 
suffering. Matt. 25 : 46. 

vi. Results of Sin. 

W e use the term results of sin to signify whatever has been 
occasioned or brought about by the foreknown and actual sinful¬ 
ness of men, and which is not properly included in the penalty 
of sin. 

The following particulars may perhaps be referred to this 
head. 

1. Certain natural evils. E. g. 

a. The hardness and sterility of the ground. Gen. 3: 17-19. 

b. Decay in the natural world. Rom. 8 : 20-25 ; 2 Peter 3 : 13; 
Rev. 21: 1, sq./ Acts 3: 21. 

c. Excessive ignorance among men. 

2. Certain moral advantages. E. g. 

a. A clearer exhibition of God’s character (holiness and love) 
than could otherwise have been made. (The work of Christ.) 

b. A peculiar and perhaps greater blessedness in the redeemed 
than could have been realized without sin. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


97 


PART FOURTH —SOTERIOLOGY. 

Chapter I. The Doctrine of Christ. 

Topic i. The Person of Christ the Mediator. 

Topic ii. The Work of Christ as Mediator. 

R. The word fieahrjg or Mediator occurs in 1 Tim. 2 : 5; 
Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12: 24; and Gal. 3: 20. The work of a 
Mediator is to produce reconciliation. Rom. 5: 11; 11: 15; 2 
Cor. 5 : 18, 19. 

Topic i. The Person of Christ the Mediator. 

§ i. Books of Reference. 

§ ii. The Deity of Christ. 

§ hi. The Humanity of Christ. 

§ iv. The Union of these two natures. 

§ i. Books of Reference. 

Smith, J. P., Testimony of Scripture to the Messiah. Pearson, 
J., Exposition of the Creed, Art. n. p. 160, sq. Stuart, M., Letters 
to Dr. Channing on the Trinity (in his Miscellanies) ; and Letters, 
on the Eternal Generation of the Son of God, to Samuel Miller, 
D. D. Gess, W. F., Die Lehre von der Person Christi. Domer, 
J. A., Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi. 
Hengstenberg, E., Christology of the Old Testament. Norton, A., 
Statement of Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinita¬ 
rians. Magee, W., On the Scriptural Doctrines of Atonement and 
Sacrifice. Symmington, W., The Nature, Extent, and Results of the 
Atonement. Griffin, E. D., An Humble Attempt to Reconcile the 
Differences of Christians respecting the Extent of the Atonement. 
Jenkyn, T. W., The Extent of the Atonement. Barnes, A., The 
Atonement in its relations to Law and Moral Government. Shel¬ 
don, D. A., Sin and Redemption; Sermons, vn. vm. ix. Lynd, 
S. W., Sacrifice and Atonement. Fairbairn, P., Typology of 
Scripture. Anselm, Cur Deus Homo. Translated in Bib. Sac. 

XI. XII. 


13 


98 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


§ h. The Deity of Christ. 

In considering the Deity of Christ, we shall show— 

a. That the name God is applied to him. 

b. That divine attributes are ascribed to him. 

c. That divine worship is paid to him. 

d. That the Father is associated with him. 

e. That a divine work is ascribed to him. 

f. That Monotheism is not inconsistent with his Deity. 

G. That his inferiority to the Father does not disprove his 
Deity. 

We hold that Christ, in virtue of his higher nature, is truly God 
for these reasons : — 

a. The name God , etc. is applied to Christ. 

That Christ is denominated God appears from the following pas¬ 
sages: a. John 1: 1; 20: 28; Rom. 9: 5; Heb. 1: 8-10. b. 1 
John 5 : 20 ; Eph. 5:5; Titus 2: 13; 2 Peter 1:1; Matt. 1: 23; 
Luke 1: 17; {cf. Mai. 3 : 1, sq.;) John 12 : 41; {cf Isaiah 6 : 1, 
sq.;) 1 Peter 3: 15; {cf. Isaiah 8 : 12, 13.) 

On the passages under ( a ) we remark — 

1. The first three of them pronounce Christ to be God, and the 
fourth calls him Lord or Jehovah. 

2. In all these passages, but especially in the first, Christ is dis¬ 
tinguished as to his higher nature from the Father. 

3. It is impossible, without doing extreme violence to the lan¬ 
guage, to suppose the terms God and Lord in these texts to be used 
in any but the highest and usual sense. They cannot mean a Demi¬ 
god, for this would be against the whole current of Bible doc¬ 
trine ; nor a false god, for this would make the apostles idolaters, 
and the New Testament a bundle of absurdities; nor a mere judge, 
for this would be equally inconsistent with other parts of the New 
Testament; nor an angel, for the term Jehovah is never applied to 
angels, and the same may perhaps be true of the term God. Cer¬ 
tainly these terms are never applied to angels, unless the context 
clearly indicates the unusual and tropical sense. 

Notes. — a. John 1 : 1. The Word was God. “Word” is 
here the subject, as the sense requires, and as it is before and after 
this clause. In the preceding clause the Word is distinguished 
from the Father as being with him. Cf. John 17 : 5. Hence this 
clause asserts the proper Deity or Godhead of the Word. 

But against the use we make of the clause it has been said — 


S0TERI0L0GY. 


99 


1. That &eov should be read instead of fcdg. But this is a mere 
conjecture, resting on no manuscript authority. 

2. That &e6g is equivalent to -O-eiog . But this opinion has become 
almost obsolete. Liicke, De Wette, Meyer, reject it. Had John 
wished to declare the Word to be -d-siog, he would have done so. 

3. That -freog, is without the article, and hence may signify Deity 
in a subordinate sense. 

We reply that Biblical monotheism does not recognize the exist¬ 
ence of demigods; that the position of # e6g makes it emphatic and 
forbids this view ; that the article is not required before a noun in 
the predicate ; and that &e6g could not take it in this clause with¬ 
out confounding the Father with the Word. 

John 20 : 28. “ My Lord and my God.” It is now conceded 
that these words refer to Christ. If so, they pronounce him God 
and teach his deity. But some interpreters (e . g. Liicke and 
Meyer) reject the full signification of this language, on the ground 
that Thomas was carried away by his feelings, and broke out in a 
hyperbolical exclamation. There is, however, no indication of 
great excitement on the part of Thomas ; Christ seems to approve 
his language ; and John, whose chief object in writing was to set 
forth Christ’s nature and claims, records it. We must, therefore, 
insist on the obvious meaning. 

Rom. 9:5. “ Who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” 
We regard this clause as descriptive of Christ, and not as a dox- 
ology to God the Father; because 6 naturally refers to the pre¬ 
ceding 6 Xgiaiog ; because seems to be unnecessary if this clause 
is a doxology; because ebloyrjxbg uniformly precedes the name of God 
in a doxology, (cf Luke 1: 68; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1: 3; 1 Peter 
1: 3,) but follows it as here in a description, (cf Rom. 1: 25; 2 
Cor. 11: 31; Mark 14: 61, differs;) and because a notice of 
Christ’s higher nature suits the context better than a doxology. 

Against this view of the clause Meyer, in the second edition of 
his commentary on Romans, urges the following objections, viz: — 

1. That Paul never elsewhere designates Christ as &£og. Were 
this true, we reply, it should avail nothing with Meyer; for he 
maintains that John calls Christ &sog in one , and but one instance, 
(John 1: 1.) We do not, however, admit the statement to be 
correct, as will hereafter appear. 

2. That in none of the apostolic writings is there a doxology ad¬ 
dressed to Christ in the form used with reference to God. We 
dissent from the truth of this remark, (cf 2 Tim. 4: 18; 2 Peter 


100 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


3: 18; and also 1 Peter 4: 11.) Meyer uses the doxology to 
Christ in the first two passages cited, as proof that the letters con¬ 
taining it were written after the apostolic age. 

3. That the clause before us, if applied to Christ, makes him to 
be God over all , which is absolutely irreconcilable with Paul’s 
doctrine of his subordination to the Father. 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 

4 : 5, sq. ; and 1 Cor. 15 : 28. 

The weight of this objection depends altogether upon the 
nature of Christ’s subordination to the Father, as elsewhere taught 
by the apostle. Obviously the nAviaiv of this clause does not 
include the Father, and if not, Meyer’s objection has little, if any, 
force. 

Heb. 1: 10, 12. <l And thou, Lord,” etc. We remark, that xul . 
adds this to the preceding quotation (v. 8, 9) as having been 
spoken with reference to Christ; that xtyie answers here to Jeho¬ 
vah in the Hebrew, (cf. Ps. 102: 1;) and indeed Jehovah is gen¬ 
erally rendered by this word in the Septuagint; and that the 
apostles understand Christ to be often designated in the Old 
Testament by the name Jehovah. Cf,l John 12: 41, with Isaiah 
6: 1, sq. (See Stuart on xtfptog; Bib. Repos, vol. i.) Accord¬ 
ing to our passage, then, Christ is Jehovah , the Creator , eternal 
and immutable. 

On the passages under (b) we remark — 

1. They are regarded as strongly confirmatory of those under a , 
though perhaps hot quite so decisive. 

2. The first of them ought, we believe, to be classed with those 
under a ; but, from deference to the opinion of others, we have 
placed it under b. 

In these passages it will be seen that Christ is denominated 
both God and Jehovah. 

1 John 5: 20. “This is the true God, and the life eternal.” 
That this clause relates to Christ we believe, because the pronoun 
“this” is most naturally referred to “Jesus Christ,” just preced¬ 
ing; because John is wont to represent Christ, and not the Father, 
as “the life” or “the eternal life,” e. g. John 1:4; 1 John 1: 2 
( Cf. Rev. 3:7); because the Son is declared in the former part 
of this verse to be essentially identical with the true God, by the 
assertion that we are in the true God by being in him; and 
because this reference of the clause allows to the next verse all its 
natural force. If Christ is very God , no honor paid to him, no 
putting him on a level with the Father, approaches to idolatry. If 


S0TERI0L0GY. 


101 


he is not God, John would seem to have approached very near in 
principle to that which he warns his readers to shun. 

Two objections are made to this interpretation by De Wette? 
viz: — 

1. That Christ, even as the Word, is never called 6 S-edg. We 

reply that he is called and elsewhere (Eph. 5 : 5) De Wette 

insists that &s6s does not require the article, since it is a proper 
name. 

2. That verse 21 requires us to hold fast in this clause the idea of 
the true God. Assuredly, we must hold fast that idea; for the 
words cannot be made to signify anything short of it. Their 
meaning must be retained, whether referred to Christ or the 
Father. 

Prof. Norton, after explaining verse 20, as a description of the 
Father, etc. proceeds thus: “ Should it be said that these ideas are 
not happily expressed , I answer, it is evident that the author of 
this epistle was as unskilful a writer as we might expect to find 
one originally a Galilean fisherman.” 

Eph. 5:5. “ In the kingdom of (him who is) the Christ and 

God.” The omission of the article before &eov shows that it refers 
to the same person as Xqkjiov. Of Eph. 5 : 20 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 24. 
This view is maintained by Ruckert and Harless. Bengel says, 
“ Articulus simplex summam unitatem indicans.” But Meyer and 
De Wette object to this exposition, on the ground that &e6g does 
not require the article. 

We reply, neither does XgiaTog ; hence, if the words here refer 
to different persons, both or neither of them should have the 
article, in order to prevent ambiguity. 

Titus 2: 13. “ Looking for the blessed hope and appearing of 

the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” (Ellicott.) 
We have here, as in the preceding case, but one article; yet, the 
pronoun renders a second less indispensable, even if the 

nouns signify different persons. But, in favor of referring them to 
a single person, it may be remarked, that there is nothing in the 
context to require the mention of God the Father; that in the 
following relative sentence no allusion is made to the Father; that 
kmcpaveiu, and the kindred term nuoovalu, are nowhere else used of 
the Father, or of the Father and Son conjointly; that they are 
frequently used of Christ: Cf 1 Tim. 6: 14; 2 Tim. 4: 18; 1 
Cor. 1: 7; 2 Thes. 1: 7; 1 Cor. 15: 23 ; 1 Thes. 3 : 13 ; James 


102 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


5:7; and that there seems to be more reason for prefixing 
“ great ” to the Son, when called God, than to the Father. 

The last two passages are less decisive than those given 
before. 

Matt. 1: 23. “ They shall call his name Immanuel, which inter¬ 
preted is, ‘ God with us.’ ” Cf. Isaiah .7: 14. The name Im¬ 
manuel may also be rendered, “ God is with us ; ” and this seems to 
have been its primary symbolical import in Isaiah. But, as origi¬ 
nally applied, it contained, we think, not only an assurance that 
God was about to come and deliver his peojfle from impending 
evil, but also an intimation, typical, it may be, that he was at 
length to manifest himself in the flesh and effect a still greater 
deliverance, of his people. 

Luke 1: 17. “And he shall go before him,” etc. The pronoun 
“ him ” here takes the place of “ the Lord their God ” in verse 16. 
But this pronoun evidently refers to Christ, who is therefore called 
the Lord God of Israel. Cf. Mai. 3 : 1, 23, 24. This seems to be 
the only natural interpretation of the passage. 

John 12 : 41. “ These things said Esaias when he saw his glory 
and spake concerning him.” It is now generally admitted that the 
“his” refers to Christ; and lienee, according to John, the vision 
seen by Isaiah was a vision of Christ’s glory. Yet the being 
whom the prophet saw was most solemnly worshipped by the 
Seraphim as Jehovah of hosts. Cf. Isaiah 6: 1-3. 

1 Peter 3: 15. “But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts.” 
We follow the reading adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tre- 
gelles, and required by manuscript authority. The clause before 
us is quoted from Isaiah 8 : 13; but the apostle designates the 
object of worship as “the Lord Christ,” instead of “the Lord of 
hosts,” or “Jehovah of hosts.” “Such a change,” says Huther, 
“frequently occurs in the New Testament, and is easily explained 
from the action of the Christian consciousness.” Cf. also Rom. 
10 : 12 ; 14 : 6-8. 

Col. 2:9. “ For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead 
bodily.” Here it maybe observed,— 1. That an abstract 

noun from -d-eo?, signifies the very nature or essence of God; while 
d-eidnis (Rom. 1: 20) signifies the quality of being divine. So 
Beza, Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette, Bengel, Trench. 2. That by 
adding (royai Lx tig to lv avrcJ the apostle asserts, with emphasis, that 
in the person of Christ, the Godhead is clothed with a bodily form. 
And 3. That we are aware of no reason for distinguishing “ the 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


103 


fulness of the Godhead,” here mentioned, from the Word, or higher 
nature of Christ, spoken of by John. 

R. It will be noticed that we do not appeal to Acts 20 : 28 ; or 1 
Tim. 3 : 16. They are passed by because the ordinary reading 
may fairly be called in question. The best authorities give og 
instead of freds in the latter passage, (see Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
and Ellicott, and also Rib. Repos, vol. n. p. 1, sq.) and hvqLov 
instead of S-eov in the former. 

Appendix. — To our present argument we must add an inquiry 
respecting the angel of Jehovah, so often mentioned in the Old 
Testament. 

Two questions are presented: — 

1. Does the Word of God identify the angel of Jehovah with 
Jehovah himself? 

2. Does it identify him with the Word or higher nature of 
Christ ? 

We begin with the former question, and look to such passages 
as follow for a reply, viz : a. Gen. 16: 7, 10, 13, 18, passim; 31: 
11-13, (c/. 28: 11-22,) 32: 25-31, (cf. Hos. 12: 4;) 48: 15, 16; 
Ex. 3, passim , (5) 23: 20, sq. (cf. Isaiah 42: 8,) 32: 34; 33 : 3, 
14, (cf. 2 Sam. 17: 11; Deut. 4:37; Isaiah 63: 8, 9;) Jud. 13, 
passim. .. . 

a. These passages show that “the angel of Jehovah,” “the 
angel of God,” “the angel that wrestled with Jacob,” “the 
angel that redeemed Jacob from all evil,” is also denominated 
“God,” “Jehovah,” “I am that I am,” while he both claims and 
accepts divine honor. 

b. These passages teach that “the angel of Jehovah,” the angel 
in whom is God’s name, “ the angel of his presence,” and “ his 
presence,” or person, are equivalent appellations, which are em¬ 
ployed interchangeably with the name Jehovah. 

How, it is evident to us, from an examination of these texts, 
that the angel of Jehovah is really Jehovah; that the latter desig¬ 
nation may, in every instance, be substituted without error for the 
former. But is the converse of this true ? Would it be correct to 
say that in every instance of its use the term Jehovah signifies the 
angel of Jehovah? We think not. The latter term is more 
restricted in its application than the former. So, too, e. g. the use 
of the designation, Son of God, is more restricted in the Hew Test¬ 
ament than the use of the term God. The latter is applied to the 
Supreme Being absolutely, and also to the Father, the Son, and 


104 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


the Spirit, distinctively; but the former is, of course, applied ex¬ 
clusively to the Son. We find the name Jehovah to be no more 
restricted in its application than the name God, except only that it 
never signifies a false god. That the designation, “ the angel of 
Jehovah,” is more specific than the name Jehovah, we infer — 

1. From the title itself. The word angel or messenger sug¬ 
gests at once the idea of a sender. And this idea seems to be em¬ 
phasized by the formal repetition of the title, as referred to 
above. 

2. From certain expressions. In Gen. 19: 24, e. g. we are told 
that “Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone 
and fire from Jehovah out of heaven; ” and the most obvious ex¬ 
planation of this language would refer the name in one case to the 
being who appeared to Abraham, and in the other to the invisible 
God on high. 

3. From the identity of this angel with the Logos. In proof of 
this identity, and in reply to our second question on this topic, we 
adduce such facts as these. 

a. Christ is denominated in the New Testament a messenger or 
apostle (Heb. 3: 1, cf. John 3: 34, etc.), which name is equivalent 
to that of angel. 

b. New Testament writers seem di^ctly to identify the angel of 
Jehovah and the Logos. E. g. Luke 1: 15-17, {cf. Mai. 3 : 1, 24;) 

1 Cor. 10: 4, {cf Ex. 23 : 20, 21; Jud. 2 : 1-5.) 

c. The work of the Incarnate Word, which consisted chiefly in 
revealing the invisible God and saving his chosen people, was 
essentially the same as that of the angel of Jehovah. This is a 
point of some importance; for on the principle of analogy, the 
method of divine revelation in one period may reflect light upon 
the probable method in another. 

b. Divine Attributes are ascribed to Christ. 

Thus : a. Rev. 1: 17; John 8: 58; 17 : 5, 8, 24; 1 John 1:2; 
Col. 1: 15, {cf. also John 1: 1; 3: 31-34; 6: 62; 11: 25; 12: 41; 
Heb. 1: 10, sq.) b. John 3: 13; 1: 18; Matt. 18: 20; 28: 20. 
c. John 2: 24, 25; 21: 17; Acts 1: 24; Rev. 2: 23, {cf. Ps. 7: 
10; Jer. 17: 10; 20: 12.) d. John 7: 18; 8: 46; 2 Cor. 5: 21; 
Heb. 4: 15; 1 John 3:5. e. Col. 1: 15; Heb. 1:3; John 14: 9; 
Phil. 2:6; and /. Matt. 9: 6; 10: 1; Rom. 14: 10; 2 Cor. 5: 
10; John 5: 22; Col. 1: 16, sq.; John 1:3; Heb. 1: 2, {cf 2: 
10;) Isaiah 9: 5, 6. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


105 


a. By this class of passages we are taught that Christ in virtue 
of his higher nature is eternal. 

Notes.- — Rev. 1: 17, 18. “I am the first and the last, and the living.” With 
Tischendorf, and others, we connect the first clause of v. 18 with v. 17. There is, 
therefore, no ellipsis to be supplied, as in the English version. The language here 
employed is similar to that in 2: 8, and 22: 13; and by comparing these passages with 
Isaiah 41: 4; 44: 6; 48: 12, and Rev. 21: 5, 6, it will be seen that eternal existence is 
ascribed to Christ in the same phraseology as to Jehovah. 

John 8: 58. “ Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was I am.” Here 
we should observe the deliberate strength of Christ’s language, “ Verily, verily, I say 
unto you; ” the words to which it was a reply, (v. 57,) “ thou art not yet fifty years 
old, and hast thou seen Abraham?” the effect which it produced (v. 59), “they 
therefore took up stones that they might stone him;” the proper distinction between 
yt.v'uj^ai and elvai ; the former asserting that something has come to be ; the latter, that 
something zs; and finally, the tense of the latter verb. De Wette calls e(/u, in this 
passage, the timeless present. Liicke says, “ yeveaSai clearly intimates that elvai. here 
expresses the pure idea of existence,” and adds that, “ as a matter of simple exegesis, 
the orthodox interpretation of this passage is the only tenable one.” 

John 17: 5, 8, 24. These verses, without directly affirming the eternity of Christ, 
remind us of his existence with the Father before the creation, and leave us to infer 
that his being is strictly eternal. 

1. John 1: 2. “ And we report to you the life eternal which was with the Father, 
and was manifested to us.” By comparing this passage with the preceding verse, and 
with John 1: 1, 4, it will be obvious that this apostle pronounces the higher nature of 
Christ to be eternal. The same truth is implied in those portions of Scripture which 
ascribe the work of creation to Christ or to the Word. 

The remaining passages cited after (a) confirm our interpretation 
of these, and prove the personality of the Word in his pre-existent, 
eternal state. 

b. By this class of passages we are taught that Christ, in virtue 
of his higher nature, is omnipresent. 

John 3: 13. “ The son of man who is in heaven.” b uv in this clause has been 
understood to signify who was, (c/. 6: 62;) but we must reject this view, because it 
restricts the affirmation of the participle to past time without any warrant for so doing 
in the context; and because, according to this view, the clause before us adds nothing 
to the thought already expressed. 

Again, the words o wv have been pronounced metaphorical , signifying merely that 
Christ is in perpetual communion, in constant spiritual intercourse, with heaven. But 
we do not think the context favors this interpretation. Christ’s descent from heaven is 
evidently conceived of as actual, local; and it is therefore natural to understand his 
presence there as equally actual and personal. 

Hence, thirdly, these words have been taken in a strict or literal sense as affirming 
that Christ, as to his higher nature, is ever in heaven as well as on earth. “ The 
Greek interpreters,” says Liicke, “ hold db to be in the present tense, but refer it to 
the ubiquity of Christ’s divine nature; which reference is unavoidable if we reject the 
metaphorical sense.” 

John 1: 18. “ Who is in the bosom of the Father.” This clause is allied to the one 
just examined in the object for which it was written. As being in heaven fitted Christ 
to reveal heavenly things, so being in the bosom of the Father qualified him to make 

14 


106 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


known the Father. And as heaven was doubtless conceived of as locally distinct from 
earth, so probably was the Father conceived of as being locally in heaven. Still, this 
may not have been the case; and hence the passage before us is less conclusive than 
the preceding. 

Matt. 18: 20; 28: 20. These passages evidently suppose the omnipi'esence of 
Christ. For otherwise he could not fulfil in a real and eminent sense the promise 
which they contain. 

c. By this class of passages we are taught that Christ, in virtue 
of his higher nature, is omniscient. 

John 2: 24. 25. “ Because he knew all, . . . and because he himself knew 
what was in man.” Here we notice that a knowledge of all men (v. 24) is ascribed to 
Christ; that this knowledge is represented as perfect, embracing whatever is in the 
heart (v. 25); and that it is represented as independent. He himself avrds knew, i. e. 
sine alio testimonio. Alford says that the term “man,” in v. 25, is generic; so also 
Bengel, Olshausen, and many others. But Winer and Meyer explain it as “ the man 
with whom at any time Jesus had to do.” This view does not materially affect the 
import of the passage, though it seems to us far less obvious than the former. 

Acts 1-: 24. “ Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all.” ( Cf. Rev. 2: 23.) By 
comparing these passages with Ps. 7: 10; Jer. 17: 10; 20: 12, it will be seen that 
divine knowledge is attributed to Christ. Many other statements of the New Testa¬ 
ment evidently confirm the testimony of this passage. E. g. Matt. 12: 25; 17: 27; 
Luke 6: 8; 11: 17; John 1: 48,49; 4: 29; 6: 46, 64; 11: 11; 13: 28, 38. See also 
Matt. 11: 27; and the passages cited Part I. § 4, of our course in proof of the infalli¬ 
bility of Christ. 

d. By this class of passages we are taught that Christ is per¬ 
fectly righteous.. But his righteousness, it may be urged, is no 
jiroof of his Godhead. It is no direct proof, we admit; but it 
shows him to have been a superhuman being, and one incapable 
of pride or vanity; and since he both suffered himself to be ad¬ 
dressed as God (John 20; 28), and proclaimed, “he that hath seen 
me hath seen the Father,” it proves indirectly his real Godhead; for 
the permission and use of such language on the part of a created 
being are not to be reconciled with his moral perfection. 

c. By this class of passages we are taught that Christ, in virtue 
of his higher nature, is truly equal with the Father, and a complete 
representation of his being. 

Notes. Phil. 2:6. “ Who, as he was in the form of God, did not esteem as rob¬ 
bery his being on equality with God, but yet emptied liimself,” etc. In other words, 
Christ did not look upon his equality of condition wiith <God the Father, as an appro¬ 
priation of what belonged to another, but rather as what belonged of right to himself. 
In favor of rendering apnayixdv as above may be urged 

1. The form of the word, for nouns ending in nos generally express action. 

2. The use of the woi'd in an active sense in the only other plaee where it occurs. 

3. The pertinence of the thought thus obtained to the exhortation of Paul. 

But this interpretation makes the apodosis of the sentence begin with dXXd , and re¬ 
quires us to supply in thought “yet” or “nevertheless.” Compare, however, John 
16: 7, and the other passages cited by Robinson under dXAd, 2 c. a. 


SOTEKIOLOGY. 


107 


Prof. Hackett translates, we believe, as follows: “ Who, though he was in the form 
of God, did not regard as spoil his being on equality with God,” and supposes that the 
act of robbery is put by metonymy for the object seized; while the meaning is, “that 
Christ did not consider his equality with God as something seized or arrogated to him¬ 
self without right. On the contrary, he possessed and could claim equality,” etc. We 
have two objections to this view of the passage. 1. The logical relation of the clause 
“ being in the form of God,” is not properly given by the term, “ though,” if nix apnaypdv, 
sq. belongs to the protasis. Paul cannot mean to say that Christ, notwithstanding he 
was in the form of God, did not regard his equality with God as arrogated; as if his 
being in the form of God would naturally lead him to esteem it thus. Hence, the 
clause should be rendered, “ as he was,” or “ since he was.” 2. Nothing of importance 
is gained by assigning to apKaypis the passive sense. It may indeed be more natural to 
describe a state or condition unlawfully held as plunder or booty, than to describe it as 
robbery; yet the latter is more expressive than the former, and certainly not un¬ 
natural. 

Wiesinger begins the apodosiswith oix apnayyos thus: “Who, though he was in the 
form of God, did not esteem the being equal with God an object to be seized,” etc. He 
affirms — 1. That this verse relates to Christ in his pre-existent state. 2. That he 
then actually possessed equality with God by virtue of being in the form of God. 3. 
That apnayixos properly signifies “ an act of appropriating openly what is not one’s 
own; ” and that it signifies here by metonymy that which solicits such an act. 
his view, it may be objected — 

1. That Christ is thus represented as not choosing to appropriate what he already 
possesses. 

2. That “his being equal with God,” is thus represented as an object, the appropria¬ 
tion of which, in the circumstances, would be robbery. Wiesinger attempts to answer 
these objections, but unsuccessfully. 

Still another explanation of apnaypds has been suggested, viz: that it here signifies 
an “ object to be eagerly desired or coveted,” and nothing more. Plunder is supposed 
to be extremely inviting, — “stolen waters to be sweet,”—and therefore the word 
plunder may be used to designate any object which is greatly to be desired. Accord¬ 
ing to this view, the act of unlawful seizure is put by metonymy for the object seized, 
and then this object, by way of metaphor, is used to denote anything which is greatly 
to be coveted. 

We object to this interpretation — 

1. Because it cannot well be thought that Paul had in view so remote an idea when 
he used this term. There is no evidence whatever that apnaynos was in use to express 
such an idea. 

2. Because this interpretation leaves out of sight the exhortation of verse 4, which 
may well be supposed to have some direct confirmation in our passage. “ Looking not 
each one to your own things, but also to the things of others,” must here be illus¬ 
trated. 

3. Because the doctrine thus taught is incredible. It is impossible to believe tha< 
Christ did not esteem equality with God something greatly to be desired. Indeed, the 
greatness of his love to lost men is measured, in part at least, by the desirableness of 
that which he relinquished in order to redeem them from sin and death. The language 
seems to us very extraordinary, if so understood. 

In Col. 1: 15, Christ is said to be an “ image of the invisible God,” that is, an ade¬ 
quate !, true image; hence, very properly rendered “the image,” as there is no other 
adequate manifestation of the Deity. 

In Heb. 1: 3, Christ is called a “ raying forth of God’s glory, and an exact expression 
of his being;” language which conveys yet more forcibly the same idea as that of 
Col. 1: 15. 


108 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


In John 14: 9, Christ himself declares, “He that hath seen me hath seen the 
Father; ” an expression which cannot signify less than that Christ in his own judg¬ 
ment was an adequate representation of the Divine Being. 

f. By this class of passages we are taught that Christ, in virtue 
of his higher nature, exercises divine authority and power. 

Notes. Matt. 9 : 6. Christ had called attention, in verse 5, to the fact that neither 
greater nor less power is requisite, in order actually to remit sins, than to restore by a 
word the paralytic to health. Hence, to show that he was able to forgive sins, he now 
restores the paralytic by his word. It may also be observed, that Matthew breaks off 
his quotation of the Saviour’s language at the word “sins,” and proceeds in his own 
language to say, “then he saith,” etc. This change of construction makes the pas¬ 
sage somewhat obscure. For a different view of the context, see Alford. 

Matt. 10: 1. It appears from the language of this verse, that Christ not only had 
power to heal the sick and control the action of demons, but could also give a similar 
power to others; or rather could work miracles at their word, though absent. 

Rom. 14: 10; 2 Cor. 5: 10; John 5: 22; cf. Rev. 6: 16, 17. It is plain from these and 
other portions of the Word of God, that Christ is to be the final Judge of mankind; 
but from the nature of the case he must have divine knowledge to judge the world in 
righteousness. Cf. Acts 17: 31. 

John 1:3; Col. 1: 16, sq.; Heb. 1:2; 2: 10. These passages ascribe the actual cre¬ 
ation and preservation of the universe to Christ; and hence, also, by implication, tiftT 
Almighty power and unlimited wisdom requisite for such action. 

Again, we hold that Christ, in virtue of his higher nature, is 
God ; because in the Scriptures — 

c. Divine Worship is paid to him. 

E. g. (a) Matt. 14 : 33; 28: 9, 17 ; John 9 : 35-38; (cf. John 5 : 
23 ; 20 : 28 ;) (b) Acts 1: 24; 2 : 21; 7 : 59; 9 : 14, 21; 22 : 1G; 
Rom. 10 : 12, 13 ; 1 Cor. 1:2; (cf. Rom. 1:7; 16: 24; 1 Cor. 1: 
3; 2 Cor. 13:13, etc.;) (c) 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18; Rev. 1: 
6; 5: 9, 12, 13, 14; 7 : 10; Rom. 9:5; and perhaps Heb. 13: 21. 

a. By this class of passages we are taught that religious homage 
was paid to Christ with his full consent and approbation. 

b. By this class we are taught that prayer was addressed to 
Christ by the apostles and early Christians. 

Notes. Acts 1 : 24. The reasons which lead us to believe that Christ was here 
addressed are these: that kvoioS by itself in the New Testament generally refers to 
Christ (cf. Stuart. Bib. Rep. i.); and that the other apostles were chosen by the Saviour 
himself (cf. Acts 1:2; John 6: 70). Neither of these reasons is strictly demonstra¬ 
tive; yet they may be accepted together as satisfactory, inasmuch as the objections 
to this reference are of no force whatever. 

Acts 2: 21. DeWette, Hackett, Ripley, and other expositors understand that Kvptov 
here signifies Christ; and there appears to be no good reason for doubt on the point. 
Cf v. 20, 26, and Joel 3: 4. 

Acts 7: 59; 9: 14, 21; 22: 16; 1 Cor. 1: 2. Commentators are nearly unanimous in 
the opinion that Christians are said, in these passages, to call on the name of Christ as 
their divine Lord. This was their custom and distinguishing peculiarity. 


S0TEKI0L0GY. 


109 


c. By this class we are taught that Christ was deemed worthy 
of the highest kind of religious adoration by the apostles. 

It will be seen that the doxology in its usual and solemn form 
is addressed to our Saviour, and that the heavenly hosts are repre¬ 
sented as joining his name with that of the Father, in their most 
exalted worship. 

d. Christ associated by himself with the Father. 

Thus, (a) John 5:17,21, 22; 8: 16, 18; 10:28-30; (cf. 14: 
14, 16; 15 : 26;) (b) 16: 15; 17: 10 ; (cf 10: 14;) (c) 12 : 44, 45; 
14:7,9; 15:23,24; (d) 14: 3, 18, 21, 23; (e) 14: 28; (cf 17: 
5 ;) (f) 5 : 17, 18 ; 15 : 24; 16 : 10 ; (cf 20: 17.) 

Without examining these passages in detail, we call attention to 
several points, viz: — 

a. Christ declares his own working to be just like his Father’s 
working. 

b. He claims as his own whatever belongs to the Father. 

c. He professes to be a complete representative of the Father. 

d. He speaks of his own presence as no less a blessing to his 
disciples than that of his Father. 

e. He deems it necessary to remind the eleven apostles of his 
own inferiority to the Father. 

f He distinguishes between his own Sonship to the Father, and 
that of his disciples ; never putting himself with them and saying 
“ Our Father.” 

e. A divine work is assigned to Christ. 

For such a being and no other— 

a. Could perfectly know the mind of God, his love of holiness, 
and his love to man. Matt. 11 : 27; John 1: 18. 

b. Could signally honor the character of God, by voluntary 
humiliation or suffering. John 3:16; Rom. 5:8: John 6:42; 
Phil. 2: 7. 

c. Could by so doing act in behalf of others; since nothing of 
the kind was due from himself. John 17: 19; (cf. Luke 17: 
9, 10.) 

d. Could become the Saviour of men, and yet their salvation 
be wholly due to help from God. Luke 2: 11; Acts 4: 12; 1 
Tim. 4: 10. 

e. Could be worshipped by men, without idolatry. John 5: 23, 
etc. 

R. It is natural for good men to feel the deepest love, other 


110 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


things being equal, to him who is their greatest benefactor; to him 
who has made the greatest ^sacrifice to bestow on them the great¬ 
est boon. Hence, in every age of the church, there has been 
manifested by the truly regenerate a predisposition to love and 
worship Christ, — a spontaneous conviction outrunning the exam¬ 
ination of testimony, that he is and must be God as well as man. 
And if the motto, “Pectus est quod facit theologum ” be true, this 
is a valid argument for the deity of Christ. 

Says Anselm, “ Do you not perceive that whatever other person 
should redeem a man from eternal death, this man would rightly 
be adjudged his servant ? But were this so, he would by no means 
be restored to that dignity which he would have had if he had 
never sinned; since he, who would have been nothing less than 
the servant of God and the equal of good angels in all things, 
would now be the servant of one who was not God, and to whom 
the angels were not servants.” Cur Deus Homo , i. c. 5. 

“ So, likewise, as men were neither willing to know God through 
his Logos, nor to serve the Logos of God, who is by nature our 
Lord, it pleased God to exhibit his own Lordship in man, and to 
draw all unto himself. But it was unsuitable to do this by a mere 
man, lest having a man as Lord we should become man-worship¬ 
pers ; therefore, the Logos himself became flesh, and the Father 
called his name Jesus, and thus made him Lord and Christ; that 
is to say, made him to rule and reign, that, as every knee bows at 
the name of Jesus, whom ye crucified, so also we should know the 
Son himself as Lord and King, and through him the Father.” 
Athanasius Ora. n. c. 16, cont. Arians. See also Acts 2 : 36. 

But it is antecedently improbable that God should give his glory 
t o another; that he should assign to any created being a work 
which would make good men desire to crown its performer with 
the love and honor which belong to God alone; hence, it is ante¬ 
cedently improbable that Christ is less than God. 

Result. As the result of our examination, we find the doctrine 
that Christ is truly God resting upon a broad and firm scriptural 
basis. It will, however, be necessary, before leaving this topic, to 
consider some objections which are urged against the doctrine 
thus sustained. It is said, e. g. to be inconsistent with Biblical 
statements respecting — 

1. The oneness of God, or Monotheism. 

2. The inferiority of Christ to God the Father. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


Ill 


Each of these assertions will now be carefully examined. 

f. Is the Deity of Christ inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine 
of Monotheism ? 

In reply, we say — 

1. The oneness of God is asserted by the Scriptures chiefly in 
opposition to false gods. The bearing of this fact on the question 
before us is quite obvious, and is ably stated by Dr. Woods. 

2. The oneness of God asserted by the Scriptures may be a one¬ 
ness of nature, of spiritual substance. If so, it is not necessarily 
opposed to the tri-personality of God. We may assert, e. g. that 
the two substances, body and spirit, in man, have a common per¬ 
sonality, constitute but one person, and here is no contradiction in 
the statement; so, too, we may assert that three or two persons 
have one substantive nature or essence, and there is no contradic¬ 
tion. We predicate unity of essence , but threeness of personality . 
And it is quite evident that essenoe and personality are not con¬ 
vertible terms. 

One and the same spiritual substance may, therefore, have more 
than one consciousness or self. This may, indeed, be incomprehen¬ 
sible to us; but only, perhaps, because our own consciousness is 
single. So far as we can ascertain, there is really at this point no 
a priori presumption against the tri-personality of God. 

Even the human spirit sometimes appears to have a double con¬ 
sciousness, normal and abnormal, though not at the same time; 
yet such a fact suggests the possibility of more than one conscious¬ 
ness at the same time in the Infinite Spirit. 

3. It is not in all cases possible for us to perceive the consistency 
of well-attested facts. We have, e. g. good and sufficient reason 
to believe in the existence of an almighty and benevolent God, 
along with the prevalence of sin and misery among his creatures; 
but we are utterly unable to reconcile these facts. Each of them 
seems to preclude the existence of the other; yet they do really 
coexist, and are by no means inconsistent with each other. 

4. The words person, personal, etc, probably suggest to our minds 
a greater distinction than exists in the divine nature. We must 
use them, however, for want of better terms. 

5. The doctrine of God’s tri-personality assists us in apprehend¬ 
ing his moral nature and self-sufficiency ; in apprehending, e. g. the 
action of love or benevolence in him apart from the created uni¬ 


verse. 


112 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


G. Is the Deity of Christ inconsistent with his inferiority to the 
Father, as taught by the Scriptures? 

This inferiority is thought to be affirmed directly, (a) in gen¬ 
eral, and ( b ) in particular, as to knowledge, as to power, and as to 
moral excellence; and likewise indirectly, by passages which 
teach (a) that his higher nature is derived from the Father, and 
(b) that his power and authority are dependent on the Father. 

We shall, therefore, in reply to the question stated above, con¬ 
sider one by one these affirmations, or supposed affirmations, of 
Christ’s inferiority to the Father, in order to ascertain if possible 
whether they teach anything inconsistent with his proper Deity. 
We are told, then, that Christ’s inferiority to the Father is affirmed 
directly — 

a. In general . John 14: 28 ; l “My Father is greater than I.’ 
(cf. John 17: 5; Phil. 2: 9-11; Ileb. 1 : 3, 4; and Chr. Rev. vi. 
p. 219, sq.) 

1 Calvin says, “ Non confert liic Christus Patris divinitatem cum sua, nec humanam 
suam naturam divinae Patris essentice comparat, sed potius statum prsesentem coelesti 
gloriae, ad quam mox recipiendus erat.” De Wette remarks, “ that Jesus, as the mili¬ 
tant and suffering Messiah, is here subordinated to the Father; but in this there is no 
denial of his Deity.” So also Lucke. 

b. In particular. 1. As to knowledge. Mark 13 : 34; 11: 13 ; 
Luke 2: 52. 

Of these passages only the first, viz: “ But of that day or hour knoweth no one, 
neither an angel in heaven nor the Son, but the Father,” (cf. Matt. 24:36,) requires 
particular examination. In this remarkable text everything in relation to our present 
inquiry depends on the meaning which is given to oidev and vl6g. What then does olSev 
here signify V Some expositors have resorted to the Hebrew and made it synonymous 
with the Hiphil of yadha, which signifies to make known. But this Hebraistic use of 
<nta does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, and cannot therefore be safely 
assumed here. It is a possible but not a probable use of the word. 

Others, again, have suggested that the verb here signifies to know officially. The 
Messiah, it is said, was a messenger from the Father, and as such could be said to know 
only what was given him to reveal. In his subordinate, official capacity, he knows 
nothing beyond his commission. His private, personal knowledge, is as though it were 
not. See 1 Cor. 2: 2, where c Mlvai seems to be used with nearly the meaning here 
defended. This explanation is given by Augustine, Luther, Melancthon, Bengel, and 
others. Calvin says, “ Caeterum non dubito, quin ad munus sibi a Patre injunctum 
respiciat, quemadmodum supra, quum diceret, non esse suum hos vel illos ad dexteram 
et sinisteram suam locare. Non enim (ut illic exposui) simpliciter hoc sibi detrahebat, 
sed sensus erat, non fuisse a Patre missum cum hoc mandato, quam diu inter mortales 
versatus est. Sic etiam nunc intelligo, quatenus Mediator ad nos descenderat, donee 
sua provincia defunctus esset, non fuisse illi datum quod postea a resurrectione accepit: 
namtunc demum sibi datam esse rerum omnium potesta tern assumit.” But this is not 
quite satisfactory. 1. Because tuo$ is not the only subject of oidev, and the verb ought 
perhaps to be understood in the same way when referred to the Son as when referred 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


118 


to angels or men; while it is hardly natural to regard the ignorance affirmed of these 
as simply official. Yet there are many instances of zeugma in the New Testament, e. g. 
1 Cor. 3:2; Luke 1: 64; (cf. Win. § 66, hi. sq.) “The verb, however, must always 
be of such a nature as to express an idea which may be taken in a wider or more lim¬ 
ited sense.” (Kuh. $ 346, 3.) This remark is obviously true of »lSa. 

The explanation to know officially is not quite satisfactory. 2. Because it ascribes to 
Christ the formal language of human courts, without any intimation of this in the 
context. Hence, the majority of expositors at the present day give the verb its usual 
meaning. (Cf. Meyer, DeWette, Olshausen, Alford, Ripley.) 

We inquire next, What does Gos here signify? 

Some reply: The Logos or higher nature of Christ; and for two reasons. 1. Because 
the designation Son is here correlative of Father, and must signify the Son of God. 
We think, however, it cannot safely be assumed that the appellation Son of God is 
always used with even a predominant reference to the higher nature of Christ. ( Cf. 
John 3: 13; 6: 62; Rom. 5: 10; 8: 32; Heb. 6:6;) and, 2. Because the language of Christ 
is here climacteric; and hence the Son is presumed to be superior in knowledge to 
angels. This is true. But might not Christ as a man , and in his human nature , be sup¬ 
posed to have at this period of his life vastly greater knowledge concerning his own 
kingdom and work than even angels ? If so, the force of this argument disappears. 

Hence, others reply: That the term vl6; here refers to the lower nature of Christ, 
by virtue of which he ranks with created and finite beings. “ Scimus enim duas nat- 
uras in Christo ita fuisse conjunctas in unam personam, ut sua cuique proprietas ma- 
neret: praesertim vero quievit Divinitas, seque minime exseruit, quoties ad implendum 
Mediatoris officium interfuit humanam naturam seorsum operari quod suum erat.” 
Calvin, ad locum. It must be granted that this interpretation is not altogether natural 
and obvious; and we resort to it, if at all, in order to avoid a contradiction between 
this verse and other statements of Christ. In so doing, we obey a correct rule of inter¬ 
pretation, but one which must be applied with exceeding caution. 

Others still reply: That vl6s here signifies the Messiah or Incarnate Logos; the di¬ 
vine Word in his state of humiliation. This, doubtless, is the most obvious view; and 
if correct, we must refer to John 1: 14, and Phil. 2: 7, sq. as nullifying every objection 
to the deity of Christ which is drawn from passages relating to his complex nature. 

Says Prof. Ripley: “ What this humiliation involved in all its extent, as to his higher 
nature, we never can know upon earth. It is not, therefore, surprising that questions 
are suggested by certain passages of Scripture which cannot be satisfactorily an¬ 
swered.” 

As to the fact revealed by the other passages cited under this 
head, viz : Mark 11 : 13 ; Luke 2 : 52, especially by the latter, it 
is to be accounted for by referring to the complete humanity of 
Christ. He possessed a finite soul, a lower spiritual nature as well 
as a higher. 

But to pass on: We are told that Christ’s inferiority to the 
Father is affirmed directly . (2) As to power. E.g. in John 10: 
29; “ My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all,” etc. 

Here it is sufficient to remark, that interpreters with great unanimity concede that 
Christ'Cannot have designed to include himself in the rdivrwv who are pronounced infe¬ 
rior to the Father. Indeed, he is plainly excluded from them by the next verse: “ I 
and my Father are one; ” namely, one in power , for this is required as the primary idea , 

15 


114 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


by the context. Liicke, DeWette, Olshausen, Alford, and Bengel agree on this point. 
Says Euthymius: “If one in power, one also in deity, and essence, and nature.” 

“ Per icrutv refutatur Sabellius, per 'iv Aldus,” remarks Bengel. It is certainly difficult 
to conceive of oneness of power apart from oneness of nature. Says Dr. South, n. 9: 
“ For be the fountain never so full, yet if it communicates itself by a little pipe, the 
stream can be but small and inconsiderable, and equal to the measures of the convey¬ 
ance. God can no more give his power than his glory to another; there is no mortal 
arm can draw his bow; God cannot thunder or lighten by proxy.” We, therefore, 
look upon this passage as bearing witness to the proper deity of Christ, rather than to 
his inferiority to the Father. 

We now proceed to another specification, viz: that Christ is 
represented as inferior to the Father (3) as to moral excellence. 
E. g. in Mark 10: 18. “Why callest thou me good? No one is 
good, but one — God.” (Of. Matt. 19: 17; also Athanasius 
contr. Ar. c. 4 ; Luke 18: 19.) 

This response of Christ denies that the epithet “ good ” is applicable in a full and 
absolute sense to any except God. The yomig man, with very inadequate concep¬ 
tions of moral excellence, had probably given this title to Christ, regarding him as a 
human teacher, a mere man, though a prophet of the Lord. And since Christ did not 
then wish to assert his divine claim to the title in question, he directed the young 
man’s attention to God as the only perfect standard of good, in order thereby to rec¬ 
tify his conceptions of virtue, and destroy his self-righteousness. Let it, however, be 
observed, that Christ neither denies nor affirms his own Deity; he simply declares that 
God alone is truly good. No man, however virtuous, can deserve this title. Whoever 
applies it strictly to any human being has no adequate conception of true moral excel¬ 
lence. To the passages now considered, some would add Matt. 4: 1, sq. ; Heb. 2: 18; 
4: 15; which prove that Christ was susceptible of temptation; while on the other hand 
James declares that “ God cannot be tempted of evil.” But Christ, we shall presently 
see, possessed a human as well as a divine nature; and the former included in his per¬ 
son accounts for his susceptibility to trial or temptation. ( Cf. Heb. 2: 14-18.) 

It is further urged against the Deity of Christ, that his inferiority 
to the Father is affirmed, — indirectly, by passages which teach: 
a. That his higher nature is derived from the Father. 

The title Son of God, it is said, is given to Christ in considera¬ 
tion of his higher nature, and therefore presupposes the origin of 
that nature in the Father, or its derivation from the Father. Now, 
whatever reason there may be for the premise of this argument, we 
are by no means ready to accept the conclusion. For it is often 
necessary to understand words which adequately describe human 
relations, in a modified sense when applied to the nature or the 
action of God. E. g. the words form, voice, life, thought , repent¬ 
ance, etc. It must not, therefore, be assumed at once that the 
designation Son of God, though given to Christ in consideration 
of his higher nature, points to any origin or derivation of that 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


115 


nature. Obviously, the term Son may have been chosen, for want 
of a better, to indicate some other relation than that of origin; 
and hence, to discover its meaning when applied to Christ, we are 
to consider not only the passages where it occurs, but also the 
bearing of other statements of the Bible on the point of inquiry. 

We find the designation, Son of God, used in the Scriptures — 

1. Of Jesus Christ, the Son of Mary, apparently because the di¬ 
rect agency of God took the place of a human father in his gener¬ 
ation. Luke 1: 31-35; cf John 1 : 14, 18 ; Gal. 4: 4 ; 1 Thes. 1 : 
10 ; Heb. 4 : 14 ; 6:6. 

2. Of Christ as Messianic King. 2 Sam. 7 : 14; Ps. 2 : 6, 7; 
Acts 13: 33 ; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 1:5; Matt. 26 : 63, 64; John 1: 
50 ; 8: 36; Matt. 16 : 15, 16; (cf Mark 8 : 29; Luke 9: 20;) John 
1:18; 6: 68, 69 ; 4: 42 ; Luke 22 : 67, 70. 

But such instances as the following, it is said, cannot be brought 
under either of these heads, viz. Matt. 11 : 27 ; 21: 37, 38 ; John 
3: 16; Heb. 1: 2; 7: 3; 1 John 4: 9; 5 : 20; Col. 1: 15; also 
Rom. 1 : 4. Before proceeding to examine these texts, we may 
cite from Tholuck the remark, “ That vtds is everywhere in the 
Hew Testament so used that it includes the human manifestation 
of Christ,” though it may often presuppose an earlier existence; 
and may also observe that names or titles which are strictly appli¬ 
cable to persons during but a part of their history, are frequently 
given to them when reference is made to other parts of their 
history. 

Notes. Matt. 11: 27; {cf. Luke 10: 22; Mark 13: 32.) The position laid down by 
Tholuck cannot be overthrown by this passage; and if vlog here includes the human 
manifestation, this certainly may afford the ground and explanation of the name. 

John 3:16. Most interpreters hold that the word “ gave ” here points to the suffer¬ 
ing and death, as well as to the incarnation of Christ. ( Cf. Rom. 8: 32; Gen. 22: 3.) 
Many go still further, and suppose that it points exclusively to his passion. Certainly 
the context will not justify us in making it refer to the incarnation only. Here then, 
as it appears, the term Son is again applied to the Logos Anthropos. 

Heb. 1: 1, 2. DeWette, Ebrard, Tholuck, Stuart, and others, hold that the term Son 
is here applied to Jesus Christ, the Logos Anthropos; though with a predominant ref¬ 
erence to his higher nature. We regard their exposition as correct; and apply to this 
text our preliminary remark on the retrospective use of titles. The i. and ii. Excursus 
of Stuart on Hebrews, as well as his letters to Dr. Miller, relate to the question before 
us, and will repay a careful perusal. 

Heb. 7:3. It may be said in this case, also, that the writer in using the designation 
Son of God, has in mind the Messiah, the Mediator; though, perhaps, as one who pos¬ 
sesses an eternal nature. We therefore account for the use of that appellation in the 
same way as in the preceding passages. 


116 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


1 John 4: 9; 5: 20; {cf. 4: 14.) There seems to be no sufficient reason for not ex¬ 
plaining these passages on the principle resorted to in the foregoing instances. Tet 
if any one, in view of such statements as are found in John 3: 13; 6: 62, and of the 
fact that Son of God is with John a familiar designation of Christ, deems it more 
natural to suppose that the beloved disciple merely applies to the chief factor in the 
complex nature of Christ a name belonging to the whole nature, there can be no great 
objection to such a view. 

Col. 1: 15. That ' wo--'*-'*' may signify “first-born” in the sense of heir or head, 
(cf. Heb. 1: 2, 6,) is certain from such passages as follow, viz: Deut. 21: 16,17; Job 
18: 13; Ps. 89: 28; Is. 14: 30. And the context, we think, favors this explanation of 
it here. The word in question occurs in the following passages of the New Testament. 
Matt. 1: 25; Luke 2: 7; Romans 8: 29; Col. 1: 15, 18; Hebrews 1: 6; 11: 28; 12: 23; 
Rev. 1: 5. 

Rom. 1: 3, 4. On this much controverted passage, we remark: that “his son,” v. 
3, is equivalent to “ Son of God,” and refers to Jesus Christ, the Logos Anthropos; 
that “flesh” refers to his lower or human nature; that “spirit of holiness ” refers to 
his higher or divine nature; that 'oqi<j$£vtos signifies defined, constituted, or declared; 
and that “with power” has the force of an adjective modifying “Son of God.” We 
have, then, in these verses, two declarations respecting the Son of God, viz: 1. That 
he was born as to his human nature of the seed of David, and, 2. That he was shown 
to be the Son of God, clothed with might, as to his divine nature, by the resurrection 
of the dead. So Melancthon: “ Declaratus est esse filius Dei potens. According to 
this view, the words “ with power ” are emphatic; and the resurrection is appealed to 
as evincing the power of Christ’s higher nature. ( Cf. John 2: 19, 21; 10: 17,18.) 

But even if the words “with power” are supposed to modify “ declared,” the apostle 
simply teaches that Christ was forcibly shown to be the Son of God as to his higher 
nature; but he does not say that this higher nature, prior to and irrespective of the 
incarnation, could be properly called the Son of God. He does not tell us whether 
this title is strictly appropriate to the pre-existent Logos as such , or only to the Logos 
in his subordinate, mediatorial condition. Hence, the passage before us does not prove 
the eternal sonship, much less does it prove the derivation of Christ’s higher nature. 

But does not the word [xovoy&vrj$ refer to the generation of 
Christ’s higher nature ? 

This epithet, we reply, may point,— 1. To the singular birth of 
Christ from a virgin by the power of God ; or, 2. To the singular 
exaltation of Christ as Messianic King; or, 3. To the singular 
love of the Father to Christ. Cf. Gen. 22: 2, 12, 16; Jud. 11: 
34; Jer. 6 : 26; Amos 8: 10; Zech. 12: 10; Ps. 22: 21, in the 
Hebrew or Septuagint. 

It is sufficiently accounted for by a reference to either of these 
peculiarities of our Saviour. 

We conclude, therefore, that the sacred writers never use the 
appellation Son of God, or only-begotten Son, to express the rela¬ 
tion of the eternal Word to the Father; they never predicate 
sonship of Christ’s higher nature exclusively. 

But we may go a step further, and affirm that the title Son does 
not necessarily imply either derivation or inferiority. And, to jus- 


S0TERI0L0GY. 


117 


tify this statement, we appeal — 1. To the principle brought to 
view in our preliminary remark; and 2. To the variety of relations 
designated in Hebrew, or Hebraistic Greek, by the term Son. Cf. 
Stuart’s Letters to Dr. Miller, vi. 

We now pass to the last point, viz: — 

b. That Christ’s power and authority are dependent on the 
Father. John 5 : 19, 30 ; 6 : 57 ; 11: 41,42; 14: 10 ; 17 : 2, 3 ; 
1 Cor. 15: 28. 

On this class of passages it may be observed, in general, that 
none of them refer to the Logos in his original state; and hence 
their explanation may be sought, if necessary, in his voluntary 
humiliation, etc. Cf. Phil. 2:7; John 1 : 14; Gal. 4 : 4. 

Notes. — John 5: 19. “ The Son can do nothing of himself.” This language has 
been supposed to assert Christ’s moral inability to do anything of himself. Cf. v. 30, 
and 4: 34. Thus understood, it neither affirms nor denies his Godhead; but simply 
proves the absolute agreement of his will with that of the Father. Yet Meyer, De 
Wette, Lticke, Olshausen, and Alford, very properly reject this interpretation, as not 
in harmony with the context. Again, it has been understood to assert Christ’s natural 
inability to do anything of himself. Either (1) as a created, dependent being; which 
hypothesis seems to make him a mere automaton, physically incapable of doing right 
or wrong. Or (2) as identical in the substance of his higher nature with the Father; 
which hypothesis makes it metaphysically impossible for him to do anything apart 
from the Father. With slight variations, Liicke, De Wette, Olshausen, Meyer, and 
Alford approve this interpretation; and the text so explained favors the deity 
of Christ. 

John 5: 30. “I can of mine own self do nothing.” This verse is similar to the one 
just examined, and affirms the unity of Christ’s will — resting, we suppose, on the 
unity of his divine nature — with that of the Fathei\ An official subordination, 
nothing more, is taught by this passage. 

1 Cor. 15: 28. “ Then shall the Son himself be subject unto him." Of this difficult 
passage various interpretations have been given. One thing, however, it teaches 
very clearly, viz: that the mediatorial reign of Christ will ultimately cease. He will 
at length no longer, in his complex nature, and in distinction from the Father, be 
“Head over all things to the church.” (Eph. 1: 22.) The word virurayfirjerai is hei’e 
used, I think, in a modified sense to express the same idea which is contained in v. 24. 
Hence the Son will subject himself to the Father, by giving up his mediatorial 
authority, in order that God, without any official distinction of persons, may be 
supreme and alone in the minds of all. This view is confirmed by Rev. 21 , passim, 
22: 1-5. 


§ III. The Humanity of Christ. 

We are taught that Christ, in virtue of his lower nature, is truly 
man by such passages of Scripture as the following: — 

1. Those in which he is denominated man. John 8 : 40; Rom. 
5: 15; 1 Cor. 15 : 21; Phil. 2: 7, 8 ; 1 Tim. 2: 5. 

a. In the first three of these passages there is no reason for 


118 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


supposing av&Qumog to be employed in a restricted or unusual 
sense. 

b. In the fourth, Christ is said to have appeared in the likeness 
of men, and to have been found in form as a man, not because his 
human nature was only apparent , or at best defective , but because 
it was not all, or even the chief part of him. He was not simply 
man, but man and much more , — God and man. 

c. In the fifth, the apostle denominates the Messiah man , be¬ 
cause he performed the work of mediation in human nature. 

2. Those in which he is called the /Son of Man , &c. Matt. 8 : 
20; 9: 6; 26: 64; Mark 9: 9; Luke 9: 22; John 5 : 27; Acts 
7 : 56. This title is used eighty-four times by Christ, and once by 
Stephen. 

a. It may be traced back to Dan. 7: 13, and characterizes Jesus 
primarily as the true Messiah. 

b. It is, however, in the last analysis, a descriptive title derived 
from the human nature of Christ. Matt. 1: 1, 21, 25 ; 12: 23 ; 
21: 9; Mark 12 : 35 ; Luke 20 : 41; Rom. 1: 3 ; 2 Tim. 2 : 8. 

3. Those in which human properties and susceptibilities are 
ascribed to him. Matt. 4 : 1, sq.; 26: 37; Luke 2: 52; John 11 : 
33,35; Heb. 2: 17; 4: 15; cf 5: 2. 

These passages testify that Christ possessed the spiritual as well 
as bodily nature of man. Heb. 2 : 17, pronounces him to have 
been in all respects likejiis brethren. This text alone is decisive. 

4. Those in which his lower nature is called flesh , &c. John 
1 : 14; 1 John 4: 2; 2 John 7; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 2: 14. 

a. The word flesh, as used in the first lour passages above, is 
held by most interpreters to signify man or human nature. Meyer, 
De Wette, Olshausen, Bengel, Alford, Ripley, Liicke. How much 
is implied by it in each case must be learned from the context. 
Cf. Luke 3:6; John 17: 2; Acts 2 : 17; Matt. 24: 22; Rom. 
3: 20. 

b. The terms “ blood and flesh,” used in the last passage, signify 
undoubtedly human nature, regarded perhaps as frail and mortal, 
Cf. Gal. 1: 16 ; Eph. 6: 12. 

Thus we find a name, strictly applicable to but one factor of 
Christ’s lower nature, chosen to designate the whole of it. 

5. Those which describe his official work, and suggest the fitness , 
if not necessity, of his being man as well as God. For as such — 

a. He could be under the law and magnify it by obedience. 
Gal. 4: 4. 


S0TERI0L0GY. 


119 


b. He could suffer as an expiatory victim. Heb. 9 : 24-28. 

c. He could sympathize with man in weakness and trial. Heb. 
2 : 17 ; 5 : 7-10. 

d. He could raise men into fellowship with God. 

See the treatise of Ullmann on the sinlessness of Christ. Ger- 

% 

man Selections, p. 390, sq. 

§ IV. The Union of these two Natures. 

We learn that deity and humanity became one person in Jesus 
Christ — 

1. From the icay in which the Word became incarnate. Matt. 
1: 18-25 ; Luke 1: 31; 2: 7 ; John 1: 14 ; Gal. 4 : 4. 

2. From the fact that attributes of either nature are freely 
ascribed to him: — Of deity. Matt. 12: 25; 17: 27; John 2: 
25 ; 3: 13; 21 : 17; 8 : 58. Of humanity. Matt. 4: 2; 21: 18, 
sq.; Luke 2 : 52 ; Matt. 26 : 38 ; John 11: 5, 33, 35 ; Heb. 2 : 17, 
and perhaps Mark 13 : 32. 

R. a. In consequence of this personal union , whate ver Christ did 
or suffered by virtue of either of the natures united in him, re¬ 
ceived character and value from the other also. 

R. b. It is impossible for us to define accurately the relation of 
the Word to the human spirit of Christ. Yet certain leading 
hypotheses on this subject may be noticed; though it can hardly 
be expected that any one of them will give general satisfaction. 

It has been supposed — 

1. That the divine Logos took up into personal union with him¬ 
self all the essential properties of human nature. The Word 
appeared in the form and nature of man. 

Says Hooker (L. v. c. 52), “ It pleased not the Word or Wisdom 
of God to take to itself some one person among men, for then 
should that one have been advanced which was assumed, and no 
more; but Wisdom, to the end that she might save many, built 
her house of that nature which is common unto us all / she made 
not this or that man her habitation, but dwelt in us.” 

Augustine remarks : “ Sic Deus humanam naturam in unitatem 
personae suscepit, quod se humilian's per misericordiam, incorruptae 
virginis uterum ex ea nasciturus implevit. Formam ergo servi, id 
est, naturam servi, in suam accepit ille Deus personam. Item: 
Deus verbum non accepit personam hominis, sed naturam.” De 
Fide ad Petrum. 


120 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Peter of Lombardy says: “ Certum est enim et sine ambiguitate 
verum, quod non natura personam; nec persona personam, sed 
persona naturam assumpsit. . . . Quia non erat ex carne ilia 

et anima ilia una composita persona quam verbum accepit, sed 
accipiendo uniyit et uniendo accepit.” Opera , p. 224-5. 

Thomas Aquinas remarks * “ Persona autem non prseintelligitur 
in humana natura assumptioni, sed magis se habet ut terminus as- 
sumptionis, ut supra dictum est. Si enim prseintelligitur, vel 
oporteret quod corrumperetur, et sic frustra esset assumpta, vel 
quod remaneret post unionem, et sic essent duae personae, una 
assumens, et alia assumpta, quod est erroneum, ut supra ostensum 
est. Unde relinquitur quod nullo modo Filius Dei assumpserit 
humanam personam. Ad secundum dicendum, quod naturae as- 
sumptae non deest propria personalitas propter defectum alicujus, 
quod ad perfectionem humanae naturae pertineat: sed propter ad- 
ditionem alicujus, quod est unio ad divinam personam. Ad ter- 
tium dicendum, quod consumptio ibi non importat destructionem 
alicujus quod prius fuerat, sed impeditionein ejus quod aliter esse 
posset.” Quaest iv. Art. n. p. 13, 14. See also Turretin n. 
2; vi. 5. 

This hypothesis is defended — 

a. As biblical. Phil. 2: 7 ; 1 John 4 : 2. 

b. As reasonable; no other hypothesis being so obvious and 
simple. 

We remark — 

a. If consciousness is a distinct faculty of the mind, this hypoth¬ 
esis make the consciousness of Christ to be that of his higher 
nature. The Logos appropriated human nature, but not a human 
person. This would lead to the inquiry whether consciousness is 
necessary to the completeness of human nature,— at least, in such 
a case. 

b. But if consciousness, according to Hamilton, is “ the universal 
condition of intelligence,” the state in which all intelligent action 
is performed , this hypothesis simply makes the Logos to be the 
appropriating factor in Christ’s complex being. No faculty of the 
human spirit was wanting to that of Christ; nor was any one 
inactive. 

It has also been supposed — 

2. That the eternal Logos became human in his personality; 
that the infinite nature was reduced within the limits of the finite. 
To be more specific, it has been supposed that the Logos became 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


121 


totally unconscious in the womb of Mary; that he awoke to con¬ 
sciousness as does a newly born human soul; that his knowledge 
was obtained and increased in the same manner substantially as 
that of other men; that during his whole earthly life, his con¬ 
sciousness, knowledge, and power, were strictly finite; that his 
miracles were not wrought by his own might, but by the power of 
the Father and the Holy Spirit dwelling in him; in a word, that 
he became human, having all the divine attributes, but in a latent 
condition, their natural action being suspended, the divine con¬ 
sciousness kept in perfect abeyance, and the Logos exercising his 
energies within the limits appropriate to mere humanity. 

In favor of this view several reasons have been urged — 

a. That it is required by John 1 : 14; Phil. 2:7; and Mark 
13: 32. 

b. That it is favored by Acts 1:2; John 14: 10; (cf. Matt. 3: 
16 ; Luke 4:1; John 3 : 34,) which passages teach that the knowl¬ 
edge of Christ was limited, since it could receive addition from the 
Father by the Holy Spirit. 

c. That it is also favored by John 5: 19, 20, 36; and Acts 2 : 
22 ; 10 : 38, which passages teach that Christ’s power was limited 
in the same way, and to the same extent, as his knowledge. 

R. a. According to this view it is of course proper to speak of 
Christ as being God, or as being man. He is God by virtue of 
the deity which he possesses; and he is man by virtue of the 
human properties and condition into which he has entered. It is 
not necessary to say he is God and man, i. e. God plus man, but 
as one whole he is God, and so too as a whole he is man. 

R. b. It may not be amiss to remark that there was a famous 
controversy in the 17th century between the theologians of Tu¬ 
bingen and those of Giessen, in Germany; the former denying to 
Christ the use but not the possession of divine attributes, and so 
affirming the latency of them in his person ; but the latter denying 
him even the possession of these attributes in his state of humilia¬ 
tion. 

The view which I have given above is that of the Tubingen or 
Saxon school; and it is certainly less objectionable than the other 
Yet it may be regarded as unsatisfactory — 

1. Because it seems to be inconsistent with many passages of 
Scripture. E. g. John 3 : 13 ; 21: 17, etc. 


16 


122 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


2. Because it supposes an almost incredible change in the Logos, 
and seems inconsistent with his proper deity. 

Tt has been supposed — 

3. That in a supernatural and incomprehensible manner two per¬ 
sons were made one in Jesus Christ. 

Of these persons one is commonly supposed never to have had 
a separate existence. The human personality is thought to have 
been strictly united with the divine, from the very instant when 
the former came into being, and no future dissolution of this union 
is anticipated by the hypothesis. This hypothesis also claims that 
the different factors of Christ’s nature remained unmixed and pure 
in essence and attributes; yet his w T hole being was one in such a 
sense, that whatever was done or suffered by either factor of it 
might be ascribed to the whole. 

Defenders of this view have sometimes illustrated the relation 
of the human consciousness in Christ to the divine, by the relation 
of a small circle to a large one, when both circles have a common 
centre, a point in which they are identical. 

In defence of the last view, many urge that it simply undertakes 
to combine the various statements of Scripture, and is not there¬ 
fore a theory proposed for the explanation of certain facts, but a 
result obtained by induction. 

Such a defence, however, is inadmissible. This statement, like 
both the preceding, is a hypothesis. It may accord with many 
passages better than either of the foregoing; but with many others 
it seems less accordant. 

R. In the early church there was an important controversy on 
the question whether Christ had but a single will, or both a human 
and a divine will. The parties were denominated Monothelites 
and Diotkelites. The controversy was apparently terminated in 
favor of the second party; but it has been renewed from time to 
time down to the present day. In a. d. 680, the first Trullan 
(Constantinople) Council decided that, “ one and the same Christ, 
Son, Lord, Only Begotten, is to be recognized in two natures, un¬ 
mixed, unchanged, inseparable, indivisible, the difference of natures 
by no means being destroyed by the unition, but rather the pecu¬ 
liarity of each nature being saved, and running together into one 
person and one hypostasis. We also preach in like manner ac¬ 
cording to the teaching of the holy fathers, that there were two 
natural wills or voluntary faculties in him, and two natural ener- 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


123 


gies, inseparable, unchangeable, indivisible and unmixed; and that 
the two natural wills were not opposed, (God forbid!) as the im¬ 
pious heretics say, but his human will followed, not resisting or 
struggling against, but rather being subject to his divine and om¬ 
nipotent will.” 

Conclusion. Neither of the above hypotheses is entirely satis¬ 
factory. We deem it therefore safest to accept the testimonies of 
Scripture to the deity and humanity of Christ, without expecting 
to discover the secret of their personal union, or to know with any 
considerable accuracy the conditions and effects of that union in 
either case. Could we attain such knowledge, it might perhaps 
aid us in estimating or conceiving the sufferings of Christ; but it 
seems to be beyond our reach in the present life. 

Topic II.— The Work of Christ as Mediator. 

§ i. His Prophetic Work. 

§ ii. His Vicarious Work. 

§ hi. His Regal Work. 

§ i. His Prophetic Work. 

This consisted in his making known to men the character and 
will of God. And it was effected — 

1. By his incarnation and suffering. John 3: 16; Rom. 5:8; 
8 : 32 ; 2 Cor. 5: 19. 

2. By his miracles. John 4 : 34; 5 : 19, 20, sq.; 6: 38-40. 

3. By his perfect teaching. Matt. 5 : 2, sq.; 7 : 29 ; Luke 4: 32; 
John 4: 25 ; 12 : 48, 49 ; Heb. 1: 2. 

4. By his moral bearing. John 1 : 4, 9 ; 8 : 12; 14 : 9, sq. 

Hence — a. The whole work and bearing of Christ should be 

considered an exhibition of God’s character and will. Of. 2 Cor. 
5 : 19 ; Heb. 1: 3. 

b. They should be considered pre-eminently an exhibition of God’s 
love to men. Of. John 3 : 16 ; Rom. 5:8; with John 10 : 12-15 ; 
Phil. 2 : 7, sq. / Rom. 5: 5 ; 2 Cor. 5: 14; Rom. 8 : 32 ; Gal. 1:4; 
2: 20. 

R. The love here signified has been called by theologians the 
love of pity, as distinguished from that of complacency. It is in 
fact pure benevolence. 

c. They should also be regarded as an exhibition of God’s ju¬ 
dicial righteousness. John 3: 16; Matt. 23: 13, sq.; Rom. 6: 23 ; 


124 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Ez. 18 : 4; Lev. 17 : 11 ; Heb. 9: 22-28 ; 2 Cor. 5: 21 ; Rom. 3 : 
25, 26. 

R. Hence, it should not be . said, that Christ suffered death to 
appease the wrath of God against sinners. His suffering was rather 
an expression of God’s abhorrence of sin and -pity for the sinner, 
of God’s love of right and benevolence to mankind. 


§ ii. His Vicarious Work. 

This consisted in his satisfying for sinful men the righteousness 
of God. And it is said to have been accomplished — 

a. By a holy life. Luke 2: 40, 49-52. Matt. 3: 15; John 7 : 
18; 8:29, 46; 15: 10; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; ( cf. Gal. 4: 4;) see 
also Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5: 8 ; 10 : 5, sq. / John 10 : 17, 18; Rom. 5: 
19. These passages teach — 

1. That Christ while on earth perfectly obeyed his Father’s 
will. 

2. That this obedience culminated in his voluntary submission 
to death. 

3. That it was prerequisite to the efficacy of his death in behalf 
of sinners. 

4. That in consequence of it he was made head over all things. 

But two questions are here suggested which deserve special con¬ 
sideration, viz: — 

a. Was obedience to the Mosaic law included in Christ’s perfect 
obedience to God ? Besides the passages quoted above, the follow¬ 
ing may be examined on this point. Matt. 5 : 17, 18; Luke 4: 16; 
Mark 2: 28 ; Luke 6:5; John 5: 18, sq. 

From all which we think it plain — 

1. That Christ honored the Mosaic law by undeviating obedi¬ 
ence. 

2. That this obedience was rendered to the true spiritual sense 
of that law. 

3. That he claimed the right as Messiah to interpret that law, 
and to disregard the letter of it. 

b. Was Christ’s obedience simply prerequisite to the redemptive 
efficacy of his death ? or was it co-ordinate in efficacy with that 
death ? 

In reply, we observe — 

1. Several passages cited above accord equally with either of 
these opinions. E. g. Luke 2 : 40, 49-52 ; John 7:18; 8 : 29, 46. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


125 


2. Others suggest the former opinion, but do not exclude the 
latter. E. g. Heb. 7 : 26, sq.; Gal. 4:4; Matt. 3 : 15. 

3. Others still may be thought to favor the latter opinion. E. g. 
Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8; 10:5, sq.; John 10 : 17, 18; 2 Cor. 5 : 14; 
Gal. 1:4; 2 : 20. These emphasize the voluntariness of Christ’s 
death, and justify the old dictum, “actio ejus fuit passiva et passio 
fuit activa.” 

4. The remaining passage (Rom. 5 : 19,) appears at first sight to 
authorize the second opinion. Yet it should be considered that 
the act of obedience here mentioned was the voluntary death of 
Christ, and that the word “ obedience ” may have been chosen to 
designate this act, because of the perfect antithesis it affords to 
“ disobedience,” used in describing the sin of Adam. 

The latter opinion is, perhaps, indirectly supported by such pas¬ 
sages as 1 Cor. 1 : 30 ; Eph. 4: 15, 16 ; John 15: i, sq. pointing to 
a union of believers with Christ, which makes him their repre¬ 
sentative in obedience and the source of their holiness. 

b. By an expiatory or sacrificial death. 

The position thus taken is of the greatest importance. On it 
depends the whole evangelical view of Christianity, as contrasted 
with the Unitarian. On it depend, indeed, the existence and value 
of Christianity as a distinct religion, or at least its claim to the 
honor of being the only true religion. We shall therefore en¬ 
deavor to establish it by a careful examination of testimony. 

A direct proof of this statement may be found in Rom. 3 : 21- 
27 ; a genuine locus clcissicus on the import of Christ’s death. We 
shall give at the outset a free translation or paraphrase of this pas¬ 
sage, and then examine the particular truths affirmed by it. In 
the progress of our examination other and kindred texts will be 
employed to confirm or explain the one before us. 

Paraphrase, v. 21. But now, without the help of the law, is 
made manifest the righteousness given and approved of God, to 
which witness is borne by the law and the prophets ; v. 22. The 
righteousness, I say, of God which exists by means of faith in 
Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all who believe, v. 23. For there 
is no distinction in this matter between Jew and Gentile, because 
all have sinned and fall short of the glory which God gives by his 
approbation ; v. 24. Since, without any merit of their own, they 
are justified by his grace through the redemption accomplished by 
Christ and inseparably connected with his person, v. 25. By Christ, 


/ 


126 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


I say, whom God the Father has set forth before men in his blood 
as a propitiatory cover or offering,—to be apprehended as such 
by means of faith alone, — in order thereby to exhibit his own 
righteousness, because the sins committed before the advent of 
Christ had been passed by in the forbearance of God; v. 26. For 
the exhibition, I say, of his righteousness in the present time, to the 
end that he may be righteous as a Ruler and Punisher of trans¬ 
gression, and yet treat as righteous the believer in Christ. 

1. The death of Christ an exhibition of God's righteousness. 

To justify our rendering of bmuioadvr^ in verses 25 and 26, we 
remark — 

a. It is sustained by the judgment of the best modern interpret¬ 
ers. E. g. Meyer, DeWette, Riickert, Usteri, Schumann, Umbreit, 
Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, Lutterbeck, Muller, Neander, 
Robinson, Alford, Conybeare and Ilowson, Hodge, Ripley, and 
others. The first five of the above are to be classed as rationalists. 
Thus expositors of very different theological opinions here unite in 
their explanation of the term “ righteousness.” And it is worthy of 
note, that some of them (as Usteri and Schumann) adopt this 
explanation with manifest reluctance, and reject the doctrine which 
it underlies as a Jewish prejudice. 

b. It is sustained by the obvious and only tenable meaning of the 
clause bid, rijv nhqeoiv — &eov. For bid. with the accusative is used 
in the New Testament almost exclusively of the motive to an act. 
It is found with the accusative of the means only twice, if at all, 
viz: in John 6: 57, and Rev. 13: 14. The telic sense given in 
our English version is without support. (Cf Winer, § 49, c. and 
Rob. sub voce.) Moreover, <rtc, found only in this passage of 
the New Testament, signifies properly a passing by or omission > 
not, like acpeoig, a letting go or remission. The ground of passing 
by or overlooking sin, (cf. Acts 17: 30,) might well be sought in 
the forbearance of God; but the ground of remission would nat¬ 
urally be denominated grace. 

c. It is also sustained by the obvious meaning of the last clause 
of v. 26. 

Yet several objections have been urged against this explanation 
of bmuioobvrjg in the passage before us, to wit: — 

1. It assigns to the word in question a different sense from that 
which it has in verses 21 and 22. 

Reply. This may perhaps be true ; yet it is urged, plausibly at 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


127 


least, that dixcuoavvjj means always and exclusively righteousness 
in the strict sense : at any rate, the word is frequently used by 
Paul in the signification we propose. Cf. v. 5, above. This in¬ 
deed is its literal and obvious sense, while the other is a modified 
and peculiar one. 

2. It destroys the harmony between this passage and Heb. 
9: 15. 

Reply. Not the harmony , but the identity. “Forif, according 
to Rom. 3 : 25, 26, God passed by the sins formerly committed, 
and then, in order to exhibit his righteousness, set forth the pro¬ 
pitiatory offering of Christ, the death of Christ must of necessity, 
in exact accordance with Heb. 9: 15, be the ‘ransom’for those 
transgressions committed and passed by under the old covenant.” 

This remark of Meyer brings our passage into perfect harmony 
with one in Hebrews. 

3. It makes the passage before us contain a thought in the 
clause chd t r}v 7 tuqf(hv — &eov which is not demonstrably Pauline. 

Reply. Why should Paul be required to present the same 
thought more than once ? In reality, however, the idea here 
brought forward is suggested in Acts 17: 30, and presupposed in 
Heb. 9: 15. 

We have now reached an important conclusion respecting the 
death of Christ, viz: That it was an exhibition of Jehovah's right¬ 
eousness. This,- must not invalidate our previous statement, that 
it was an exhibition of his benevolence; but it should rather lead 
to a view of the Saviour’s passion, which traces it back, on the 
one hand, entirely to righteousness as a distinctive attribute of 
God, and on the other hand, entirely to benevolence as a distinctive 
attribute of God. Thus, had it not been for Jehovah’s righteous¬ 
ness, he might have gratified his benevolence by renewing, pardon¬ 
ing, and saving guilty men without the death of his Soil; and 
hence this death may be traced entirely to his righteousness; or, 
again, had it not been for Jehovah’s benevolence, he might have 
exercised fully his righteousness by inflicting upon men the just 
penalty of their transgression without the death of his Son; and 
hence, Christ’s death to save them from that penalty may be traced 
entirely to God’s benevolence. In fact, the total force of Christ’s 
passion goes to express and reveal both the righteousness and 
benevolence of God. 

Andrew Fuller has stated this point with his usual clearness : 


128 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


“If the question were, Why did God give his Son to die for sin¬ 
ners, rather than leave them to perish in their sins? the answer 
would be, Because he loved them. But if the question be, Why 
did he give his Son to be an atonement for sinners, rather than 
save them without one? the answer would be, Because he loved 
righteousness , and hated iniquity.” n. 696. 

But if the sufferings of Christ were, distinctively, an exhibition 
of Jehovah’s righteousness, they must have been in some way an 
exercise of it. For an attribute can be manifested no further than 
it is exercised. 

Again, governmental righteousness is displayed in rewarding the 
virtuous or in punishing the guilty; and ordinarily in no other 
way. But Christ did not suffer as an evil doer; hence his passion 
did not exhibit the righteousness of God in the usual manner. We 
must, therefore, conclude that, in some peculiar way, it accom¬ 
plished the same object in the moral government of God, which is 
ordinarily accomplished by punishing the guilty; in other words, 
that it did as much to show the demerit of sin and God’s hostility 
to it, as is done ordinarily by the punishment of it. 

Yet the transaction may have been so unusual and mysterious 
as to be above the reach of our comprehension in this life ; and we 
may therefore be required to look upon it as an expression of 
God’s righteousness, simply because he has declared it to be so. 
On the other hand, it is quite possible that God has revealed more 
than this naked fact; that he has given us a clue to the philosophy^ 
the essential reasonableness, of this transaction; that he has inti¬ 
mated how his righteousness not only consented to the passion of 
Christ, but also expressed itself in and by that passion. 

Of this, at least, we are sure beforehand, that Christ’s sufferings 
must be owing in some way to his connection with our sinful 
race; that death must be traceable in this, as in every case, to sin; 
and hence that he suffered for us. This will be found, as we pro¬ 
ceed, to be the emphatic teaching of God’s Word. 

2. The death of Christ sacrificial and propitiatory. 

We now come to the word lluaT^ior. The doctrinal import 
of this term is nearly the same whether it signifies a kapporeth 
{Eng. ver. mercy-seat), referring to the golden cover of the ark, 
or a propitiatory sacrifice. For in either case it contains the idea 
of propitiation or expiation by means of blood. 

R. It was supposed by the Christian fathers to signify a kappo- 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


129 


reth. It has this meaning in the Septuagint, and in Heb. 9: 5. 
Several modern interpreters approve it; e. g. Luther, Calvin, Gro- 
tius, Bengel, Olshausen, Philippi, Schumann. We can discover no 
sufficient reason to doubt its correctness. Yet the term is thought, 
by a large majority of modern expositors, to signify in this place 
an expiatory or propitiatory sacrifice. It is so explained by De 
Wette, Meyer, Riickert, Usteri, Alford, Robinson, Conybeare and 
Howson, Hodge, Stuart, and others. 

To ascertain the scriptural idea of propitiation or atonement, we 
must revert to the Old Testament; and no single passage will 
give us more light than Lev. 17: 11. By it we are taught that 
sacrificial expiation was appointed by God; that it consisted in an 
emblematical covering of the guilt which separated transgressors 
from God; that this covering or putting out of sight of guilt was 
effected by applying the blood of a slain animal; and that the 
blood of such an animal effected this by virtue of its being the 
seat of life. It was the emblem of life given up in death. Cf. 
Bahr’s Symbolik, vol. 2, p. 200, sq. Kurtz Mos. Offerings. Fair- 
bairn’s Typ. n. p. 368, sq. Chr. Rev. 1852, p. 581, sq. 

In the light of this text, it is plain that animal sacrifices were 
designed to shadow forth and teach the righteousness as well as 
the mercy of God. For it will be observed — 

a. That death is the penalty which God had from the first an¬ 
nexed to sin. Gen. 2:17; Ez. 18:4; Rom. 5 : 21. 

b. That expiation for sin or for the sinner was made with blood , 
the proper sign and evidence of death. 

c. That this blood must be that of an animal slain for the very 
purpose of making atonement for sin. 

d. That the offerer laid his hands upon the victim’s h^ad before 
slaying it, thus signifying the transfer of his guilt to the same. Cf. 
the idiom found in 2 Sam. 1: 16, and elsewhere. 

e. That expiation was made for inanimate objects conceived of 
as polluted by contact with sinful men. Lev. 16: 16, 18, 33; 
and— 

f. That the holiness of God was asserted with peculiar emphasis 
by the Mosaic law. High-priest, priests, people, curtain, veil, etc. 

Yet it is equally plain that animal sacrifices could not adequately 
exhibit the righteousness of God. They were not in this respect 
a full and satisfactory substitute for the sinner’s death. Heb. 9 : 
15; 10: 1-4; 7: 18,19; Acts 13: 39. They taught, however, 


17 


130 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


the essential principle of God’s method of saving the guilty (Heb. 
9: 22); they foreshadowed the one adequate sacrifice to be offered 
by Christ (Heb. 9: 9, 12, 13, 23, sq.; 10 : 1) ; and they familiar¬ 
ized the Israelites with terms suited to describe the work of 
Christ. 

We now return to the word dcnririQiov in Rom. 3 : 25, with this 
conclusion, viz: That sacrificial blood, as employed in the Jewish 
ritual, was designed to manifest, though but imperfectly, the 
judicial righteousness of God, as well as his benevolence. 

Hence Paul’s declaration that Christ was set forth as a llaat^Qiov, 
asserts by implication all which he proceeds to state expressly of 
the design of Christ’s death. 

The view we have presented may be confirmed by examining 
other passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ’s 
death as sacrificial. From this class we select the following: 
Heb. 7: 27; 9: 12, 26,28; 10: 10, 12, 14; 13: 12; 5: 7-10; 2: 
9, 17 ; 1 John 2:2; Eph. 5 : 2. Christ is here set before us — 

a. As both high-priest and sacrifice, since he made himself an 
offering for sin. 

b. As dying to make expiation for the sins of all men, before as 
well as after his coming. 

c. As needing to die but once, since the efficacy of his death is 
sufficient and perpetual. 

We may next inquire, How did Christ’s death exhibit the 
judicial righteousness of God? How did it show the rectitude and 
firmness of his moral government ? What relation did it bear to 
the penalty of sin ? Was it vicarious f 

We adjust our reply to the last question, and say — 

1. Christ’s death was certainly, in a general sense, vicarious; 
for it came in place of the believer's death. The exhibition which 
it gave of God’s righteousness was necessary if sin was to be 
pardoned. 

2. Christ’s death was in a more special sense vicarious; for it 
was suffered by him as a penalty due , on account of their sins , to 
those for whom he died. In support of this we allege several pas¬ 
sages of Scripture. E. g. Heb. 9: 28 ; 1 Peter 2 : 24; Rom. 8:3; 
Gal. 3 : 13 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 21; Isaiah 53 : 4, sq. 

Notes. — Heb. 9: 28. According to good interpreters, the clause “ to bear the sins 
of many,” signifies to suffer the penalty due to the sins of many. So Bengel, De 
Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, Stuart, (c/. the excursus of Stuart on this passage.) We 
believe this explanation correct. For Paul seems to have borrowed his language from 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


131 


Isaiah 53: 12, and to have found there a description of Christ’s sacrificial work. In 
the offering of an animal sacrifice there was, as we have seen, a symbolical transference 
of sin (guilt) from the offerer to the victim; and then, so far. as the nature of the case 
permitted, an actual suffering of the penalty of sin by the latter. Thus also Christ 
bore the sins of many. 

Again, this interpretation is favored by the clause “ shall appear the second time 
without sin,” which implies that in some sense Christ, at his first coming, had sin. But 
if he could be said to have had it in any sense, it must have been as a sacrificial vic¬ 
tim, suffering its penalty in behalf of others. “ Without sin,” says De Wette, “ may 
perhaps, in harmony with dvevtyKeTv, signify without being laden with sin , i. e. by way 
of imputation,” (cfi. 2 Cor. 5: 21.) Bleek, with others, translates aveveyKtiv, to bear 
away, to remove. Yet he pronounces “ the allusion to Isaiah 53: 12, unmistakable” 
and remarks, “ that the verb is there to be understood of a vicarious bearing of the 
sins of others by the servant of God.” 

1 Peter 2: 24. De Wette translates, “Who took our sins upon himself and bore 
them up in his body on the tree.” And he makes the word “sins” equivalent in 
meaning to guilt and punishment. Christ is accordingly here represented as himself 
the sacrifice, bearing up our sins in his body on the cross, and suffering there the 
penalty due to us for them. The clause “ in his body ” points to that part of his 
nature as suffering death on the cross, not however in such a way as to exclude men¬ 
tal agony, ( cfi.'. also 1 Peter 4:1.) It should be added that the language of this verse 
and of the context is manifestly borrowed in part from chap. 53 of Isaiah. The view 
which we have given of this passage is defended by the best interpreters, e. g. Calvin, 
Vitringa, Huther, Usteri, Bengel, and De Wette, substantially. 

Gal. 3: 13. Our present purpose confines us to the second clause, yevouevos vnip 
vptiv KaTixpa , meaning “in that he became a curse for us.” In the death of Christ,says 
Meyer, was realized what the law denounced against us. “ The abstract is here 
used, instead of the concrete, for the purpose of exhibiting more clearly the adequate¬ 
ness of the satisfaction which Christ made to the law.” “ He bore for us the curse or 
penalty of sin, threatened by the law.” De Wette. Calvin says: “Christ was sus¬ 
pended, therefore he bore that curse. But it is certain that he did not encounter 
this punishment for his own sake; hence, then, he was crucified in vain, or that curse 
was laid on him in order that we might be absolved from it.” 

It may be added that e^ryopaa-ev in this text corresponds in sense with the dnoXvrpwais 
of Rom. 3: 24. 

2 Cor. 5: 21. The words rd v ph yvovra apapriav affirm the perfect sinlessness of Christ 
in the estimation of God the Father, or in his own. The words intp hn&v apapTiav 
enoirio-cv should be translated, He made sin for us; that is, probably, for our good , 
rather than in our stead. To the term “sin,” as here used, three different meanings 
have been assigned — 

1. Sin offering. Augustine, Erasmus, Rosenmiiller. But this signification cannot be 
given to the same word as used before in this clause, nor does it afford a good contrast 
to “ righteousness ” in the following clause. 

2. Sinner. Meyer, Usteri, Schumann. The abstract is supposed to be employed 
for the sake of emphasis instead of the concrete. Christ, it is said, was made a sinner 
in that, according to the will of God, he suffered death, the penalty of sin. 

3. Sin. De Wette, Olshausen, Alford, and others. “That is,” says De Wette, “he 
was made as it were the representative of sin; all sin was heaped upon him; merely, of 
course, as to its destructive consequences,— the evil and penalty of sin.” This inter- 
pi’etation does not differ essentially from the preceding, and it is hard to say which is 
the more natural. Perhaps the antithetic expression, “ righteousness of God,” should 
lead us to adopt the view last mentioned. 


132 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


On this passage Usteri remarks: “We must bear in mind that Paul looked upon 
death as the penalty of sin; and hence the death of the sinless Christ must be regarded 
by him as an assumption of our punishment.” 

To the foregoing passages must be added, as teaching the same doctrine, 1 John 
2:2; (cf. Usteri, p. 139, sq. ;) John 1: 29. “ These words,” says Usteri, p. 140, “ I can 
understand with De Wette and Tholuck no otherwise than of the Lamb of God, 
(cf. John 19: 36,) which takes away or removes the guilt and punishment of sin, 
namely, by taking them upon itself (cf. Rev. 1: 5; 5, 9; also John 3: 16.)” 

Isaiah 53: 4-12. On this portion of Scripture we remark — 

1. It is a prophetic description of Christ’s lowliness and suffering. This we assert, 
because it is frequently applied to Christ in the New Testament. E. g. Matt. 8: 17; 
Luke 22: 37; Acts 8: 32, 33; and because it cannot well be understood of any other 
subject. 

2. It teaches that Christ’s suffering was vicarious. This we believe, because the 
language seems to us capable of no other satisfactory explanation; because nearly all 
who refer the passage to Christ admit this to be the teaching; and because most others 
confess that it teaches the fact and principle of vicarious suffering. Knobel, Bleek, 
Gesenius, and others. 

Yet an argument has been drawn from Matt. 8: 17, against this view. If Christ, it 
is said, bore diseases by removing them, he doubtless bore sin in the same way only. 
To this inference we object — 

1. That it sets aside the prima facie import of many passages by the supposed teach¬ 
ing of one. 

2. That this supposed teaching does not probably exhaust the meaning of that one. 

Disease is a part of the penalty of sin; and Christ suffered, so far as was requisite, 

that which had been made, for transgressors, the wages of sin. In consequence of 
this vicarious suffering, he could remove or remit the bodily or mental penalty of sin 
without injury to the righteousness of God. 

It is, moreover, possible that the passion of Christ consisted chiefly in a profound 
sympathy with that which men bear as the punishment of sin. And if so, much of 
this burden may have rested on him during his whole ministry. By virtue of his per¬ 
fect knowledge and love, he may have entered into and mentally realized the suffering 
he removed. Thus his bearing disease was as strictly vicarious as his bearing any 
part of that which had been made the penalty of sin. ( Cf. Neand. on John, p. 261.) 

It appears from our examination thus far that the word Uu(tt^iop 
does in itself characterize the blood of Christ shed upon Calvary as 
sacrificial, propitiatory, atoning, as the emblem and representative of 
his life given up to death in place of those who deserved that pen¬ 
alty for their sins, and who must have suffered it but for his vica¬ 
rious passion. In a word, it pronounces his death to be a substi¬ 
tute for theirs, regarded as the just punishment awaiting them for 
sin; to be equivalent to theirs as an exercise and manifestation of 
Jehovah’s righteousness ; to be, in fact, the very penalty, so far as 
the nature of the case permitted, which was due to them for trans¬ 
gression. And this doctrine, which is clearly taught by the appli¬ 
cation of such a term to Christ “in his blood,” has also been found 
in many other passages of Scripture, which assert in the plainest 
language that Christ suffered death as a penalty due to men for 
their sins. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


133 


We do not, however, assert that the death of Christ was strictly 
punishment to him , or in other words that he was punished, even 
for our sins; but only that he endured, so far as the nature of the 
case permitted, and the ends of righteousness required, that suffer¬ 
ing which is the divinely appointed retribution for sin, and which 
is punishment in all cases to the guilty and unforgiven. 

Says Andrew Fuller: “ What he bore was punishment; that is, 
it was the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. 
So what we enjoy is reward ; it is the expression of God’s well¬ 
pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is 
the one a punishment to him , nor the other, properly speaking, a 
reward to ws.” Again, “ If Christ, by imputation, became deserv¬ 
ing of punishment, we by non-imputation cease to deserve it; and 
if our demerits be literally transferred to him, his merits must of 
course be the same to us; and then, instead of approaching God 
as guilty and unworthy, we might take consequence to ourselves 
before him, as not only guiltless, but meritorious beings.” n. pp. 
683, 685. 

3. The death of Christ redemptive. 

We now pass to the term utfoUnjotaig, redemption. The sacred 
writers often employ this and kindred terms in describing the work 
of Christ. The view which is thereby suggested was first devel¬ 
oped into a system by Anselm, in his work entitled “ Cur Deus 
Homo ? ” It has sometimes been called the commercial theory of 
the atonement, and has been held, with various modifications, — in 
one of which, the judicial view, it differs very little from the doc¬ 
trine already given, — by a majority of evangelical theologians 
ever since it was proposed. It is proper, therefore, for us to inves¬ 
tigate carefully the biblical supports of this theory. The following 
passages may be associated with the one before us in this investi¬ 
gation. Matt. 20 : 28 ; Acts 20 : 28; Titus 2 : 14; 1 Cor. 6 : 20; 
7: 23 ; 1 Peter 1: 18, 19 ; 2 Peter 2:1; Rev. 5 : 9; 1 Tim. 2:6; 
Eph. 1:7; Gal. 3 : 13 ; 4 : 5 ; cf. Matt. 6 : 12, 14; 18 : 23-35 ; 25 : 
14, 30; see also Eph. 5: 2. 

From these passages we learn — 

1. That Christ is represented as paying a ransom for the deliver¬ 
ance of sinners. Acts 20: 28; 1 Cor. 6 : 20. 

2. That the price paid by him was his own blood or life. Matt. 
20: 28 ; Acts 20: 28 ; 1 Peter 1: 18, 19; Eph. 1: 7. 

3. That by means of this price he delivered those that believe, 


134 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


from the 'penalty of sin; Eph. 1:7; Gal. 3:13; Rom. 5: 9; 1 
Thess. 1: 10; and from the dominion of sin, Titus 2 : 14; 1 Peter 
1:18; Col. 1:13; Acts 20: 28; Rom. 6: 17. 

Let it be observed that Christ is represented in these passages 
not as paying a debt, but as purchasing a captive. His work is 
contemplated as affecting man rather than God. His death is said 
to procure the deliverance of some from the bondage of sin and 
death, making them his own property and partakers of his honor 
and blessedness. 

We are not therefore required to specify any one to whom the 
price was paid, or to suppose the sacred writers carried their repre¬ 
sentation so far in their own minds. The application of this theory 
in detail exposes us to the danger of regarding the Father and Son 
as distinct parties, representing different interests or attributes; a 
view we have seen to be incorrect. This much, however, may be 
said, viz: the kingship of Christ is set forth as the reward of his 
obedience unto death. Phil. 2 : 9, sq.; Heb. 12 : 2. See Griffin on 
the Atonement. 

We may further remark — 

a. That the passages now cited make human salvation dependent 
on the death of Christ. Rom. 3 : 24-26; Heb. 9:15. 

b. That the terms Utqov and &vtI\vtqov, apjffied to the death of 
Christ, characterize the same as having an objective bearing on the 
salvation of man. Any other view of this language is far-fetched 
and unsatisfactory. See Matt. 20 : 28; 1 Tim. 2:6; cf. Heb. 2: 9. 

c. That the use of <xnolviqw(ng favors the same view. Rom. 3 : 
24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1: 14; Heb. 9: 15. 

d. That the representation made by these passages is perfectly 
consistent with the result previously gained. 

The sum of what we have now ascertained may be given as 
follows: — 

1. Christ’s death was designed to exhibit the righteousness of 
God. 

2. This exhibition was called for by God’s omitting or remitting 
the punishment of sin in certain cases. 

3. It consisted in Christ’s suffering, so far as the nature of the 
case required, that which was the penalty of sin for real trans¬ 
gressors. 

4. This suffering is therefore represented as propitiatory, cover¬ 
ing over, as sacrificial blood, the guilt of believers. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


135 


5. It is also represented as the price which Christ paid to ransom 
sinners from eternal death. 

6. It is literally and strictly that in consideration of tv hick be¬ 
lievers are justified. 

Bishop Butler, in general but unambiguous language, indorses 
this view of the atonement as scriptural: “ The doctrine of the 
gospel appears to be, not only that he taught the efficacy of re¬ 
pentance, but rendered it of the efficacy which it is, by what he 
did and suffered for us, that he obtained for us the benefit of hav¬ 
ing our rej5entance accepted unto eternal life; not only that he 
revealed to sinners that they were in a capacity of salvation, and 
how they might obtain it, but moreover that he put them into this 
capacity of salvation, by lohat he did and suffered for them” etc. 
ii. c. 5, p. 213. 

Confirmation of the preceding Hesult. 

i. Numerous passages remain to be considered, in which Christ 
is said to have suffered death for men. They exhibit this volun¬ 
tary suffering as the chief part of his work, and specify the salva¬ 
tion of men as an end to be secured by it. Yet most of them do 
not accurately explain the sense in which Christ’s death was pre¬ 
requisite to man’s salvation. We refer to such passages as the fol¬ 
lowing, which ought therefore to be interpreted in accordance 
with the more explicit statements already examined. John 10 : 11, 
17, 18; 12:24, 27, 32 ; 11: 51, 52; Rom. 5:6-11; 14: 15; 2 Cor. 5: 
15 ; 1 Thess. 5 : 9, 10 ; John 3 : 14-16 ; Matt. 26: 28 ; Luke 22 : 
19, 20; 1 Cor. 11: 24, 25. 

Notes. — John 10: 11-18. Christ here represents himself— 

a. As laying down his life according to his Father’s will, and as being loved by him 
for this act. b. As doing this freely, by his own choice and desire. The only compul¬ 
sion which he felt was that of love. c. As doing it to save the members of his spiritual 
flock from death. By laying down his life he rescues believers from destruction. “ Life 
for life ” is the doctrine suggested. 

The next two passages, John 11: 51, 52, and 12: 27, 32, show that Christ laid down 
his life for the salvation of men, and that his extraordinary suffering for such a purpose 
signally glorified God the Father. They also presuppose that faith in Christ or union 
with him is necessary to salvation, and is a result of his death. 

Rom. 5: 6-11. This interesting passage reaffirms all that we have noticed in the 
Gospel by John, and specifies in addition — 

a. That the destruction from which men are saved is an exhibition and exercise of 
God’s justice or hostility to sin. (v. 9.) b. That the source or ground of their being 
treated as righteous must be found in the death of Christ. 

2 Cor. 5: 15. We translate as follows: “ For we formed this judgment, that one died 
for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, in order that the living might no longer 
live to themselves, but to him who for them died and rose again.” 


136 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Et is not supported by a majority of the best manuscripts, and may therefore be 
omitted. This compressed statement has been variously interpreted. The word anedavov 
e. g. has been rendered — 

a. “ Were dead," that is, in sin, morally, (Eng. ter.) But this thought would hardly 
have been expressed by the aorist. 

b. “Died," that is, to sin and self. (D. W. Mey. and most.) But this meaning of the 
verb is not very naturally suggested by its use in the previous clause, nor does it allow 
to ol iravrts its full import. 

c. “Died," that is, virtually, in the death of Christ. “Mors facta in morte Christi.” 
The death of Christ was representative and vicarious in such a sense, that thereby all 
who believe are saved from eternal death. He made on the cross a sufficient expiation 
for all men. 

One explanation admitted by DeWette is this: “ Christ died, bearing in his conscious¬ 
ness all mankind, with all their weal and woe; therefore, he died instead of all, and all 
died in and with him.” 

Again, the word v-rrep has been understood to signify — 

a. For the good of. So Meyer, both here and in verse 20, as well as in all similar 
cases. 

b. In place of. So DeWette, Usteri, Ruckert, Olshausen, Alford, and most. See 
also Robinson, sub voce. “ The inference, therefore all died, would have been impossi¬ 
ble,” says Ruckert, “ had Paul merely thought that Christ died for the best good 
of all.” 

On the whole, we now regard this passage as decidedly favorable to the doctrine of 
vicarious suffering on the part of Christ. We also prefer the third meaning assigned 
to dir&avov, but cannot strongly objeot to the second, (cf. Gal. 2:20,) which is adopted 
by the best modern interpreters. 

Matt. 26: 28; Mark 14: 22-24; Luke 22: 19, 20; 1 Cor. 11: 24, 25. The Lord’s Supper, 
whose institution is described in these texts, teaches that forgiveness of sin and spir¬ 
itual life may be traced to the death of Christ as their procuring cause. It is also 
worthy of notice, that baptism is frequently associated by the apostles with the death 
of Christ. Indeed, the incarnation, the holy life, the miracles, and the teaching of our 
Saviour, are rarely noticed by the apostles when speaking of forgiveness and justifica¬ 
tion, while his death is everywhere bi-ought to view as having a most direct and im¬ 
portant relation to these acts of grace. 

Hence, we remark that the passages now before us, together with many others of a 
similar character, confirm our interpretation of those previously considered: — 

1. By asserting the pre-eminent importance of Christ’s death. 

2. By asserting a direct and indispensable connection between the death of Christ 
and the pardon of sin. 

3. By declaring the ground or source of justification to be in the death of Christ. 
Rom. 5:9; Matt. 26: 28; Luke 22: 19, 20. 

ii. The result already obtained is also confirmed by the peculiar 
intensity of Christ’s suffering in the prospect and experience of 
death. Matt. 20: 32; Luke 12 : 50; John 12: 27; Matt. 26: 38, 
39, 42, 44 ; Mark 14: 33-36, 39, 41; Luke 22: 41-44 ; Ileb. 5 : 7- 
10 ; Matt. 27 : 32, 46 ; Matt. 27.: 50; John 19: 30. 

Special attention should be given to the following points: — 

1. That Christ anticipated his passion with extraordinary emo¬ 
tions of dread and desire. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


137 


2. That he experienced a mysterious and overwhelming sorrow 
in the garden. 

3. That he encountered yet more dreadful agonies on the 
cross. 

4. That these agonies were too great for long endurance, and 
therefore he soon expired. 

It should likewise be remembered — 

a. That Christ possessed the utmost fortitude and self-control. 
This we infer from the absolute perfection of his character, and 
from the record of his conduct on various occasions. 

b. That he had a perfect assurance of his speedy resurrection 
and exaltation. Matt. 12 : 40 ; John 2: 19-21; 10: 17, 18. 

c. That he had come into the world for the very purpose of suf¬ 
fering death. Matt. 20 : 28. 

In view of these things, we believe it morally certain — 

1. That Christ’s sufferings were inconceivably greater than those 
of ordinary martyrdom. 

2. That they cannot be accounted for by the hypothesis of a 
physical organization extremely delicate and susceptible, because 
there is no proper evidence of his having been distinguished from 
other men by such an organization, and because the possession of 
it would not explain his distress in the garden or on the cross. 
Women have endured the most dreadful and prolonged tortures 
with calmness. (Blandina.) 

3. That they are sufficiently accounted for by supposing them to 
have been sacrificial, propitiatory, vicarious; and in this way alone* 
If Christ chose to appreciate and endure in his own person, by 
the power of sympathy or otherwise, more or less of that suffering 
which is the just penalty of sin, his bearing and language are fully 
explained. Nor is it necessary to hold that he suffered just as much 
as all the elect, or all men would have suffered forever. Indeed, 
the language of Scripture does not authorize us to affirm this. 
See Dr. South on “ The Messiah’s Sufferings for Man’s Sins,” n. 
p. 4. 

hi. The result we have gained receives further confirmation from 
the prominence given by the apostles to faith in Christ , as the 
subjective condition or medium of justification. John 3: 15, 16, 
18, 36; Acts 16: 31; 3: 16; 26: 18; Rom. 1: 17; 3:22, 25,28; 
5:1; Gal. 2 : 16 ; 3 : 8, 24, 26. 

We remark — 


18 


138 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


1. By requiring men to have fear, or repentance, or faith, or 
love, the Word of God requires them to have all these; for the 
exercise of any one of them implies a moral nature disposed to- 
exercise them all. 

2. The relative prominence given by the Word of God to one 
or another of these subjective conditions of life will be found to 
vary somewhat with the amount and character of the truth already 
revealed at any particular time. 

3. The final instructions delivered by Christ and his apostles 
may be presumed to lay special emphasis on that which is most 
essential and fundamental in piety. 

4. These instructions assign a very marked pre-eminence to faith 
in Christ crucified, as the condition of pardon and life. To illus¬ 
trate, the following table shows in the first column how many 
times /uejavoth) and fisr&voia together occur in each book of the 
New Testament, and in the second column how many times Tuoretfw 
and nlaTig occur. 


Matt. 

7 19 

John 0 

98 

1 Cor. 

0 

16 

Eph. 

0 

11 

Mark 

3 20 

Acts 11 

52 

2 Cor. 

3 

9 

Phil. 

0 

6 

Luke 

14 20 

Rom. 1 

58 

Gal. 

0 

20 

Col. 

0 

5 

1 & 2 Thess. 22 

Tit. 0 

8 

James 

0 

19 

Jude 

0 

7 

1 Tim. 

0 22 

Philem. 

2 

1 & 2 Pet. 1 

11 

Rev. 12 

4 

2 Tim. 

1 9 

Heb. 3 

33 

12 3 John 0 

11 


56 482 


iv. Our result is also confirmed by the inseparable connection 
which obtains between the forgiveness of sins, or salvation, and 
the person of Christ. Acts 4 : 12 ; 13 : 38, sq.; Eph. 4 : 32; 1 John 
2: 12 ; John 14 : 6 ; Rom. 3: 25 ; Heb. 9 : 15; Acts 10 : 43 ; (cf. 
Acts 3:18, 24; Luke 24: 25-27, 47.) 

We regard these passages as teaching that in Christ’s name, 
representing his mediatorial character and work, is found the only 
sufficient reason for the pardon of sin. And this reason, as we 
perceive by the light of other passages, is found chiefly at least in 
his blood or death as related to the righteousness of God. To 
suppose that a knowledge of Christ produces in men genuine 
faith, which faith is the proper and sole ground of their forgiveness, 
is to set aside — 

a. The prima facie import of a large part of the New Testa¬ 
ment. 

b. The experience of many devout Christians. 

c. The possibility of salvation for all who die without a knowl¬ 
edge of Christ. 


SOTEKIOLOGY. 


139 


Conclusion. We here conclude our examination of inspired 
testimony respecting the atonement , so far as its nature or relation 
to God's law is concerned. 

We have seen that the atonement, or sacrificial and propitiatory 
work of Christ, consisted chiefly in his death; that this work is 
the ground or source of reconciliation between God and men; and 
that it is this, because it is such a satisfaction to the claims of 
divine righteousness, such a vindication of the divine law, as ren¬ 
ders it suitable and right for God to exercise his mercy in forgiving 
and saving the penitent. 

Design of the Atonement. 

We must now proceed to consider the design of the atonement 
with reference to men. In regard to whom did Christ make his 
life an offering for sin ? Here again we are remitted to the Word 
of God for instruction. What is revealed we must receive, whether 
able to reduce it to a system or not. Making then our appeal to 
the Bible, we affirm that Christ suffered death — 

i. In order that the elect might all be saved. John 10 : 11, 15, 
26-28; 11:52; Eph. 5:25; John 17:19; Rom. 8: 32; 1 Tim. 4 : 
10; John 6: 39, 40; 17 : 2; Eph. 1:4. 

It seems to be the doctrine of these and similar passages — 

a. That God purposed from the first to save certain individuals 

of our race. . 

b. That these were given to Christ in a special sense, to be his 
flock or people. 

c. That, in laying down his life, he had their salvation partic¬ 
ularly in view. 

ii. In order that all men might have the offer and possibility of 
salvation. 1 John 2: 2; 1 Tim. 2: 1-6 ; 4: 10; Heb. 2 : 9; 2 Cor. 
5 : 15, 19, 20 ; 2 Pet. 2:1; John 3: 16, 17. 

Notes. 1 John 2 : 2 ; {cf. 4: 14, and John 3: 16,17; also 6 : 51, and 1 : 29.) lAaoy/oj, 
propitiation , refers to Christ as himself the atoning sacrifice of sin. The phrase, “ for 
the whole world,” is equivalent to, for those of the whole world; that is, the sins of 
the whole world. De Wette. The expression, “ whole world,” here signifies all man¬ 
kind, not excluding those finally lost. 1. Because * 007 / 0 $, used of men, naturally in¬ 
cludes all, unless its meaning is in some way restricted. 2 . Because fwersiiwv and 
k6<t/xov are here contrasted, the one referring to Christians and the other to unbelievers. 
3. Because the adjective oXov is manifestly emphatic. 

1 Tim. 2 : 1 - 6 ; (cf. Tit. 2 : 11-14; 2 Pet. 3:9; Ez. 18: 23.) The word “all ” in v. 6 , 
is equivalent to the fuller expression “ all men,” in verses 1 and 4. It therefore nat¬ 
urally signifies the whole human family; and should be so understood unless some other 
passage forbids this general reference. 


140 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


1 Tim. 4: 10. For an explanation Of aurrip navrwv av^pwrroiv, cf. 2 : 4. pa^icrra 
irurrciv points to the fact that God’s saving will or desire realizes itself in believers only. 
God is the Saviour of all, whether they obtain salvation or not; but in a strict and emi¬ 
nent sense he is the Saviour of believers only, who actually obtain salvation. Huther. 

Heb. 2: 9. vavros must here signify every one of our race, or every believer of our 
race. We prefer the former as more obvious than the latter. 

2 Cor. 5: 16, 20, 21; (cf. Rom. 5: 18, 19, 12.) Verses 20 and 21 are understood by 
the best interpreters to be an epitome of Paul’s preaching given by himself. If this 
be correct, Paul was wont to exhort men in general to be reconciled to God, affirming 
that God had made the sinless Christ to be sin for them. These two verses, as thus 
explained, are in perfect harmony with the third interpretation of v. 15, given above. 

2 Pet. 2: 1; (cf. Luke 7: 30; 19: 44; 2 Cor. 2: 15; Acts 13: 46; Rom. 10:21.) For 
the meaning of dyopacravra with a personal object, cf. 1 Cor. 6: 20; 7: 23; Rev. 5:9; 
14: 3, 4. This participle with its object is prefixed to Seandrriv, Christ, in order to em¬ 
phasize their guilt. This shows that Christ purchased by his death some who will 
deny him and perish. If some, then all, according to the most obvious meaning of 
the passages already examined. 

John 3: 16,17; (cf Rev. 22: 17; Matt. 23: 37, and John Howe, “ Redeemer’s Tears 
over Lost Souls.”) 

These and similar portions of the "Word of God indicate, not 
merely that the atonement is sufficient for all men, but also that it 
has been made so intentionally; that God designed by means of 
the atonement to make provision for the pardon of all men ; to 
give them all a fresh probation and offer of life by the economy of 
grace, as well as to lead some to repentance by the renewing 
power of his Spirit. Any other view of these passages seems to 
me unnatural and therefore erroneous. 

If there were explicit statements in the Word of God to the 
effect that Christ suffered for the elect only , that he did not suffer 
for those who will be finally lost, it would certainly be necessary 
for us to look for a different explanation of these jiassages; but 
we are not aware of any such statements, and therefore abide by 
their obvious import. 

We will close our account of the Work of Christ in satisfying 
the Righteousness of God for sinners by the following 

Rational View. 

i. God’s opposition to sin is set forth, without exaggeration, by 
the penalty, eternal death, which he has affixed to it. A lighter 
penalty would not have agreed so well with his estimate and sense 
of the demerit of sin, and hence would not have so truly revealed 
his moral character to men. 

ii. God’s moral nature is altogether good and right; and there¬ 
fore his opposition to sin must always bo perfectly right, both in 
feeling and in expression. 


SOTEEIOLOGY. 


141 


in. Hence, his estimate and sense of the guilt of sin cannot 
diminish; nor can his expression of these be enfeebled. For he 
will not deny himself by exchanging an expression once chosen for 
a feebler and less adequate one. 

iv. Yet he may, without absurdity, be supposed to exchange one 
expression for another, which exhibits with equal force and clear¬ 
ness his opposition to sin; and perhaps for one which sets forth 
this opposition witli new and greater energy. 

v. The only substitute which seems at all adapted to the case, 
is the suffering of another in behalf of the sinner. And so far as 
we can judge, in order to make the substitution right, this vicarious 
suffering must be endured voluntarily, by a sinless being, and must 
not authorize the sinner’s pardon except on condition of repentance 
and good security of future obedience. 

vi. The amount of vicarious suffering required in such a case, 
may perhaps be in an inverse ratio to the excellence of the suffer¬ 
er in the sight of God. Should the Most High be pleased to con¬ 
nect this suffering in any way with his own person, its significance 
would thereby be vastly enhanced. 

vn. Christ suffered, according to the Scriptures, in such a way 
as to fulfil all these conditions. Hence, so far as we are able to 
see, his suffering may be a proper substitute for the sinner’s death. 
Reason has nothing decisive to urge against this conclusion. 

viii. The chief end to be reached by this vicarious suffering on 
the part of Christ, is the salvation of sinners; and hence it is from 
first to last an exhibition of God’s benevolence, as well as of his 
righteousness. Indeed, looking upon men as doomed to inevitable 
death without this inteiqiosition, it is traceable entirely to love. 
Cf. John 3: 16. 

R. An objection has sometimes been urged to this view of the 
atonement, viz: — 

If some for whom Christ died remain impenitent and suffer the 
penalty of their sins, this penalty is in effect twice endured; i. e. 
by the sinner and by his substitute, which is unjust. 

Reply. ‘If there be any injustice in this, it must be either to the 
sinner or to Christ. But it cannot be to the sinner, for he suffers 
no more than he deserves; nor can it be to Christ, for he suffers 
voluntarily, with a perfect foresight of his rejection by some. 
Moreover, the objection looks upon the penalty of sin too much 
as a fixed amount of pain, and not enough as an index pointing 


142 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


forever to God’s abhorrence of sin and love of right. And finally, 
it is at least possible that the same atonement would have been 
necessary to rescue a single transgressor which now suffices 
for all. 

It remains for us, in treating of the work of Christ, to con. 
sider — 

§ III. His Regal Work. 

t 

He is the head of believers, and in this capacity — 

1. He gives them spiritual life. John 14: 6; 6 : 35; 15 : 1, 4; 
Rom. 12: 5; 6: 11; 1 Cor. 12: 27; 2 Cor. 4: 10, 11; 5: 17; 
Gal. 2 : 20; Eph. 2: 10; 4 : 15, 16 ; 5 : 29, 31; Col. 3 : 3; 1 Cor. 
12: 12 ; Gal. 3 : 16. 

2. He governs them. Ps. 2, 45, 72, 110 ; Isaiah 9: 6, 7; Luke 
1: 32, 33; John 8: 36; 10: 27, 28; 18: 36; Rom. 14: 9; Eph. 
1:22, 23; 5:23; 6: 5-9; Phil. 3 : 20, 21; Col. 1:18; Heb. 3 : 6. 

3. He pleads for them. Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7 : 25; 9: 24; 1 
John 2:1. These last passages represent Christ as the patron or 
advocate of believers in the court of heaven, taking care of their 
interests. Their cause is in his hands. 

With the above may be compared such as the following: 1 
Cor. 15: 27, 28; Eph. 1: 20-23; 1 Peter 3: 22. Also, Matt. 
16: 27; 25: 31-46; Acts 10: 42; 17: 31; Rom. 14: 10; 2 Cor. 
5: 10-15. 

R. a. Since Christ is mediatorial king, subduing all things to 
himself, the Holy Spirit, by whose agency in part this work is ac¬ 
complished, is represented as subordinate to him. John 14: 16; 
15: 26; 16: 7-15; Acts 2: 33; Rom. 8: 9; Gal. 4: 6; Phil. 1: 
19; 1 Peter 1 : 11. 

R. b. The work of the Holy Spirit may therefore be regarded 
as, in some sense, Christ’s work, and so referred to him. John 14: 
16-20; cf. 2 Cor. 3: 17; Rom. 8: 9-11. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


143 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


Chapter II. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 

This subdivision of Soteriology furnishes two general topics, 
viz: — 

Topic a. The Person of the Holy Spirit. 

Topic b. The Work of the Holy Spirit. 

Topic a. The Person of the Holy Spirit. 

§ I. Books of Reference. 

§ II. The Deity of the Holy Spirit. 

§ III. The Personality of the Holy Spirit. 

§ IY. The Identity of the Holy Spirit and the “ Spirit of God.” 

§ I. Books of Reference. 

Owen, J., On the Holy Spirit. Buchanan, J., On the Office and 
Work of the Holy Spirit. Jenkyn, T. W., The Union of the Holy 
Spirit and the Church. Pearson, I., On the Creed, Art. viii. p. 
459, sq. Kahnis, Lehre d. h. Geistes. Barrow, I., De Spiritu 
Sancto, vol. iii. p. 341, sq. 

§ II. The Deity of the Holy Spirit. 

We are taught the Deity of the Holy Spirit by those passages 
of Scripture — 

1. Which call him God. Acts 5 : 3, 4; cf. 1 Cor. 3: 16, 17; 2 
Cor. 6: 16; Epli. 2: 22; 1 Cor. 6: 19. 

Notes. In Acts 5: 3, Peter says to Ananias, “ Why has Satan filled thy heart 
that thou shouldst deceive the Holy Spirit ? ” And in the next verse, “ Thou hast not 
lied to men, but to God; ” and it seems quite plain that the word God is used in the 
latter case to signify the Holy Spirit, and to mark his deity. In this way the sin of 
Ananias was made to stand out in all its enormity before his mind. In 1 Cor. 3: 16, 
17, Paul reminds his readers of a well-known but apparently forgotten truth, “ Know 
ye not that ye are God's temple, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? ” Here the 
first clause is explained by the second. God dwells in the Christian because the Holy 
Spirit dwells in him. We are to explain 2 Cor. 6: 16, in the same way. 


144 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Eph. 2: 22. “In whom,” i. e. Christ, “ ye are builded together into a habitation of 
God in the Spirit; ” that is, say Harless, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, “ by the indwelling of 
the Spirit.” Quasi-modal. 

1 Cor. 6: 19. “Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in 
you? ” 

It must be evident from these passages that the presence of the 
Holy Spirit in the heart of a believer is deemed by the sacred 
writers equivalent to the presence of God therein. 

2. Which associate him in religious acts with the Father and 
the Son. Matt. 28: 19; 2 Cor. 13 : 13. 

3. Which assign to him divine attributes or offices. Acts 28: 
25, (cf. Isaiah, 6: 8, sq.f) Heb. 10: 15, (cf. Jer. 31: 33, and 10 : 
1;) 1 Cor. 2: 10, 11; John 3: 5, (cf. 1: 13.) 

§ III. The Personality of the Holy Spirit. 

This is taught by those passages — 

1. Which associate the Holy Spirit with the Father and the 
Son. Matt. 28: 19; 2 Cor. 13: 13; and Matt. 3: 1G, 17; Eph. 
2: 22, and many others. 

Notes. Matt. 28: 19. Here the disciples of Christ are charged by him to baptize 
believers into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now, 
if the two appellations, Father and Son, represent persons, obviously the third must 
likewise represent a person. No good reason can be given for associating a species of 
action on the part of God with the Father and the Son in this connection. 

The objections of De Wette to the obvious meaning of this verse are uncommonly 
weak, viz: — 

a. That such a combination of the threefold view of God is the result of reflection, 
and would be unnatural in the case of Christ, though less so in that of the apostles. 
2 Cor. 13: 13. To which Meyer replies: “ Such reflections would be nothing strange 
or unsuitable in this quiet, solemn discourse of the risen Saviour; ” and w r e think his 
reply correct. 

b. That in the apostolical period, sometimes at least, all reference of baptism to the 
Holy Spirit is wanting. E. g. Acts 8: 16. 

To this objection we deem his own reply satisfactory, viz: That the form there used 
may be regarded as an abbreviation of the one here given. Yet it is possible, and we 
think even probable, that the full formula was used in administering the ordinance, 
though Luke abbreviated it in his narrative. 

R. De Wette admits that Matt. 28: 19 is certainly genuine. The words of Christ 
must therefore, in his opinion, have been incorrectly reported by Matthew. 

2 Cor. 13: 13. This passage is almost as conclusive as the preceding. Its only 
peculiarity is the order in which the persons of the Trinity are mentioned. This may 
have been determined by the blessings traced to them. De Wette remarks that “ the 
grace of Jesus Christ takes the first place, because it is nearest the Christian. This 
grace has its ground in the love of God. Finally, by the communion of the Holy Spirit , 
the Christian appropriates the grace of Christ, and enters into fellowship with the 
Father.” In other words, the blessing, its source, and its medium. Says Chrysostom: 
“ Thus the (blessings) of the Trinity are inseparable; and where there is the fellow- 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


145 


ship of the Spirit, is found that of the Son; and where there is the grace of the 
Son, there is also that of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit.” 

Matt. 3: 16,17. This is less decisive, yet it favors the doctrine of the Spirit’s per¬ 
sonality. Says Bengel: “ Gloriosissima apparitio Sanctse Trinitatis, et documentum, 
quid fiat, quando nos baptizamur.” 

2. Which ascribe to him will or sensibilities. 1 Cor. 12: 11; 
Eph. 4 : 30; (cf. Isaiah 63: 10.) 

These passages, in themselves wholly unambiguous, ascribe 
choice, feeling, will, to the Holy Spirit. According to the first of 
them, extraordinary gifts were bestowed by him, and at his 
pleasure. According to the second, he can be grieved by worthless 
speech on the part of believers. And according to the third, he 
can be provoked to anger by their rebellion. 

Hence the Holy Spirit cannot be simply a power or energy 
emanating from God the Father; for such an energy has no will 
of its own, but is directed by him who puts it forth. 

We hold, therefore, from these texts, that there is a personal dis¬ 
tinction between the Father and the Son. 

3. Which represent him as a distinct agent. John 14 : 16 ; 15 : 
26; 16: 7-15; 1 Cor. 12: 8-11; Acts 7 : 51; 13: 2,4; 28: 28. 

On these declarations of Christ we observe — 

1. The Holy Spirit is called Another Helper; and is thus at 
once associated with Christ and distinguished from him, vide 14 : 
16. Meyer ends his note on this verse by saying: “Observe the 
personality of the Holy Spirit distinctly asserted in our passage.” 
And De Wette remarks that “the Spirit is an independent divine 
principle, — God himself.” 

2. The Holy Spirit was to be sent by the Father and the Son to 
abide with the apostles as a teacher. A messenger, a teacher, a 
resident. See 14 : 16, 26; 15 : 26 ; 16 : 7. This language accords 
neither with the view that the Spirit is merely an energy or influ¬ 
ence, nor with the view that his personality is identical with that 
of the Father or of the Son. One does not send himself. 

3. The Holy Spirit is to go forth from the Father , and come to 
the apostles. John 15: 26; 16: 7,13. 

These expressions suggest personal action, and plainly forbid us 
to identify the Spirit with the person of the Father or the Son. 

4. The Holy Spirit, it is said, will not speak of himself John 
16 : 13. “ This is the negation? says Meyer, “ of something conceiv¬ 
able, and it serves to represent fully the harmony of the Spirit’s 
teaching with that of the Lord.” If the Holy Spirit was under- 

19 


146 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


stood to be a divine energy or effluence, or mode of action, tbe 
apostles could hardly have needed this declaration. Independent 
action would be absurd. But if he was understood to be a person, 
no remark could be more in place. 

5. The Holy Spirit, it is said, will speak what he hears , and an¬ 
nounce what he receives . John 16: 18-15. These forms of ex¬ 
pression certainly impart conscious, separate agency on his part. 
It would be unnatural to personify in this manner a mode of the 
divine action, or an effluence from the divine nature. 

It. In estimating the force of these arguments, we should 
remember that they are drawn from a discourse which was emi¬ 
nently solemn, deliberate, and doctrinal. 

Conclusion. Christ himself clearly taught the personality of 
the Holy Spirit. But against this conclusion it has been urged — 

1. That God the Father is declared to be the efficient cause of 
all extraordinary powers and works. E. g. 1 Cor. 12: 6. 

Reply. We think the essential unity of the Godhead a suffi¬ 
cient reason for this. The one infinite being operates with undi¬ 
vided energy in each person of the Trinity. The Father is not 
idle in the economy of salvation, but works in and through the 
Son and the Spirit who are officially subordinate to him. Hence 
all their working may properly be referred to him, without deny¬ 
ing their free, personal, omnipotent agency. 

2. That the Holy Spirit is often called the Spirit of God. E. g. 
1 Cor. 12: 8. 

Reply. So, too, is he called the Spirit of Christ. E. g. Rom. 
8: 9. He may have been designated by the term Spirit because 
of the special work which he performs in the hearts of men. 
Moreover, we cannot say that the phrase “ Spirit of God ” indi¬ 
cates a more perfect union or identity of the Father and the Spirit 
than really exists according to the Trinitarian hypothesis. 

3. That the Holy Spirit is represented as being the same to God 
which man’s spirit is to man. E. g. 1 Cor. 2 : 11. 

Reply. We believe this statement too strong. Paul asserts 
that God is fully known by his Spirit only, just as a man is known 
by his own Spirit. This is the particular resemblance insisted on 
by the apostle, and we are not authorized to enlarge it by affirming 
that God’s Spirit bears the same relation in other respects to the 
divine nature, which the spirit of a man does to his human 
nature. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


147 


We see no good reason, therefore, to doubt the correctness of 
our conclusion, as stated above. 

R. We do not suppose there is any good reason to object to 
the personality of the Holy Spirit, as involving a mystery, if once 
the deity of Christ and his personal distinction from the Father 
be admitted. In regard, however, to the whole doctrine of the 
Trinity, it may be well for us to take the advice of Augustine to 
Consentius n. p. 458, Ep. 120. “ Nunc vero tene inconcussa 

fide, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse Trinitatem, et 
tamen unum Deum; non quod sit eorum communis quasi quarta 
divinitas, sed quod ipsa ineffabiliter inseparabilis Trinitas. . . . 

Et quidquid tibi, cum ista cogitas, corporese similitudinis occur- 
rerit, abige, abnue, nega, respue, abjice, fuge. Non enim parva est 
inchoatio cognitionis Dei, si autequam possimus nosse quid sit, 
incipiamus jam nosse quid non sit.” 

§ IY. The Identity of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit 

of God. 

We infer that the terms “ Holy Spirit ” and “ Spirit of God,” 
as used by the sacred writers, are frequently and perhaps gen¬ 
erally equivalent, from those passages — 

1. Which interpret the latter appellation by the former. M g. 
Acts 2: 16, sq.; {cf. Joel 3: 1-5;) Acts 10: 38; (cf. Luke 4: 
18, and Isaiah 61: 1, 2.) See also Mark 12: 36. 

2. Which ascribe the same functions to the Holy Spirit and to 
the Spirit of God. H. g. — 

a. That of inspiring men to teach the will of God. John 14 : 
26; 15: 26; 16 : 13 ; Luke 1: 67; Acts 21: 11; 2 Peter 1: 21; 
2 Sam. 23 : 2; 2 Chron. 20 : 14 ; Ez. 11: 5; Mich. 3 : 8, and Jud. 
6 : 34; 1 Chron. 12 : 18; 2 Chron. 24 : 20 ; cf. Luke 24: 49. 

b. That of working directly in their hearts, to sanctify them. 
Rom. 5 : 5 ; 15: 16 ; John 16: 8-12; 3 : 3, 8: Ps. 51: 8-14. 

R. It would probably be going too far were we to affirm that 
the phrase “ Spirit of God,” as used in the Bible, refers uniformly 
and distinctively to the Holy Spirit. It is, we believe, sometimes 
employed without any reference to personal distinctions of the 
Trinity. 

Topic B. The Work of the Holy Spirit. 

This topic leads to the consideration of the Holy Spirit’s 
agency — 


148 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


i. In Conviction. 

ii. In Regeneration, 
in. In Sanctification, 
iv. In Inspiration. 

v. In distributing other Gifts. 

R. We are not, however, about to support these statements by 
adducing the evidence in this place; for the first three will be 
established when we examine the doctrine of Redemption, the 
fourth has already been considered in Part I. and the last belongs 
more especially to the other departments of instruction. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


149 


CHAPTER III. 

The Doctrine of Redemption, or of the Actual Salvation 
of the Elect. 

This doctrine furnishes the following topics: — 

Topic I. Regeneration. 

Topic II. Justification. 

Topic III. Sanctification. 

In considering the first of these topics, we shall attempt a reply 
to the following questions: — 

§i. What is Regeneration? 

§ ii. By whom is it effected? 

§ hi. With the Use of what Means ? 

§ iv. What are its Antecedents in Man? 

§ v. What are its First Fruits in the Soul? 

§ i. What is Regeneration ? 

In reply to this question, we say — 

It is such a change of the moral nature as predisposes it to holy 
action : or, giving the term a broader sense, It is a change of the 
moral nature by which this nature is predisposed to holy action , 
and in which it begins such action. 

On these definitions we remark — 

a. That by the words “ moral nature ” we mean the permanent 
moral state, bias, or relish of the soul. This moral state, or “taste” 
of the soul is virtually reversed by regeneration; a new dispo¬ 
sition is implanted which controls and eventually destroys the old. 
Hence, the heart of man is the proper seat of this change. Says 
Andrew Fuller, “ What ideas some may have entertained of the 
production of a divine principle, I know not; but the whole idea 
that I have of it is, that it is the formation of a disposition .” 
hi. 602. And Prof. Shedd, in his Essay on “ Sin a Nature, and 
this Nature Guilt,” remarks, that “ the term nature, when applied to 
moral agency, is equivalent to natural disposition.” 

That we are right in referring regeneration to the heart , the 
seat of the affections, appears from the following considerations:— 


150 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


1. Sin ancl holiness are both traced by the sacred writers to the 
heart as their source. E. g. Ps. 78: 18, 37 ; 95 : 10; Matt. 15 : 18, 
19 ; (cf. Mark 7 : 21, 22 ;) Acts 5:3; 8: 21; Matt. 22 : 37 ; Rom. 
10:10; 13:10; Ps. 24:4; Matt. 5:8; 1 Tim. 1: 5; 1 Pet. 1: 22; 
1 John 4: 7, 8. 

2. Regeneration is explicitly affirmed to be a change of heart. 
Dent. 30:6; Jer. 24: 7; 31: 33; Eze. 11:19; 18: 31; 36: 26; 
Heb. 8: 10. 

3. This view is eminently reasonable. For to rectify the moral 
taste of the soul is to provide for holy affections, and at the same 
time for a better discernment of spiritual things; while on the 
other hand we cannot see that an increase of knowledge would 
change the disposition. 

R. Objections are made to this view, not because it fails to ex¬ 
plain the experience of a renewed soul, but because it fails to justify 
God in his claims, as may be done, it is said, by the doctrine of 
freewill, i. e. of a self-regenerating energy on the part of man. 

In explanation of our definitions, we remark — 

b. That regeneration, regarded as the production or creation of 
a new moral state or relish, with its corresponding action, is a great 
and indeed a supernatural change, — one which transcends the 
power of man as truly as any other creative act. See John 3 : 3, 
6; 2 Cor. 5: 17; Gal. 6: 15; Eph. 2: 5,10; 1: 19; 4: 23,24; 
Col. 3: 10. 

Notes. 2 Cor. 5 : 17. In this verse the believer is declared to be a “ new creature,” 
and it is added that, at his conversion, “ the old things passed away, behold they have 
become new.” This language may, at first sight, seem to affirm the entire sanctifica¬ 
tion of every believer, — that he has not only received a new and controlling dispo¬ 
sition to good, but has been quite relieved of his former sinful propensities. But Paul 
cannot mean to teach this — 

1. Because it would disagree with his teaching elsewhere. E. g. 1 Cor. 3:1; Heb. 
6: 11-14: 12: 5-11. 

2. Because it would disagree with the experience of believers, as recorded in the 
Bible. Ps. 51, passim; 106: 33; Gal. 2: 11. 

3. Because it would disagree with the experience of Christians in every age. 

In explaining this verse, we should bear in mind — 

a. That many terms and phrases, as applied in the New Testament, “ refer to the 
normal and prescribed standard of Christian character, rather than the actual one.” 
Hackett. 

b. That Paul recognizes the life of faith as that which alone deserves the name of 
life in the believer; Gal. 2:20; and even finds the Christian’s personality in this spirit¬ 
ual life. Rom. 7: 17, 23. 

c. That sinful propensities, though not entirely removed from the soul by regenera¬ 
tion, are no longer dominant, but are rendered subordinate. The soul is changed 
throughout; no element of its moral nature is unaffected. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


151 


R. These passages, as well as others to be cited below, point to 
a change in the moral nature ,, state , or taste of the soul itself,\ and 
not merely to a new exercise. They point to a great, permanent, 
radical change, by which obedience to God is rendered spontaneous 
and delightful. See Matt. 10 : 37 ; Luke 14: 26, 33. 

Again, in favor of our first definition of regeneration, we re¬ 
mark — 

c. That by regeneration a change is effected in the moral dispo¬ 
sition, which is prior in the order of nature to faith, love, or any 
spiritual exercise. This is affirmed by the Word of God. See e.g. 

I Pet. 1: 3, 22, 23; 1 John 3 : 9 ; 2: 29; 4: 7 ; 5 : 1, 4, 18 ; John 
3:3-8; Tit. 3: 5; 1 Cor. 12 : 3; Eph. 2: 8, 10; John 1: 12, 13. 

Notes. All these texts sustain our remark, unless we except the last, John 1:12, 13. 
Of these two verses, the former has been said to prove that faith in Christ is logically 
prior to regeneration, since men become sons of God by regeneration, and yet Christ 
gives to believers power to become sons of God, i. e. to be regenerated. The latter 
verse has been brought into harmony with this view by making <d refer to rUva §eov 
instead of mis iriarevovaiv. To such an interpretation we object — 

1. Because it makes these verses disagree with many others in the New Testament* 
E. g. those cited by us above. 

2. Because it sets aside the natural reference of ol to rois irujTEvovtnv. 

In lieu of it we submit the following — 

1. Reception of Christ or believing on his name, as well as being begotten of God, 
logically precedes and conditions the gift of sonship. 

2. e^ovcriav here signifies right, dignity, or privilege. Believers in Christ have from 
him the right or privilege of being sons of God. 

3. yevtcrSai here signifies to be, with the implication that the sonship did not always 
exist. 

If this view be rejected, we may resort to our second definition of regeneration, ac¬ 
cording to which it includes the first working of the new life, so that to say a man is 
regenerated is to say expressly that he has commenced believing. This passage would 
then be quite consistent with our last remark (c), but would not support it. 

Liicke says, “ They become ‘ children ’ by believing on his name. As faith is the 
necessary condition, so is it the essential beginning of sonship. The believer as such is 
a child of God already.” This is equivalent to our view of t^ovaiav and ycvtaScu. 

Andrew Fuller maintains that Christians are called sons of God for two reasons; (1) 
Because they bear the image of their heavenly Father which is given them by regen¬ 
eration, and (2) Because they have the rights, privileges, and inheritance of sons, which 
follow believing. “ Both,” he says, “ are mentioned by John 1: 12, 13, and the fox-mer 
is there repi-esented as being prior to the latter.” Cf. Stuart, in Bib. Sac. vii. 289, sq. 
Ripley, ad loc. and Gal. 3: 26-29; Rom. 8: 14-17. 

It is also to be observed that faith is uniformly set forth in the 
Scriptures as a moral exercise pleasing to God. As such it cannot 
of course be ascribed to those who are yet in the flesh. See Heb. 

II : 5, 6, and Rom. 8: 7-9. On the latter passage, Melancthon re¬ 
marks, “ Hie locus maxime refutat Pelagianos et omnes qui imagin- 
antur homines sine spiritu Sancto legi obedire.” 


152 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


We close our reply to the first question by saying — 

a. That regeneration and the first exercise of a right moral 
disposition usually take place at the same point of time. The 
origination and the first action of the new taste are strictly con¬ 
temporaneous. 

b. That we know of nothing in their relation to each other 
which requires them to be exactly contemporaneous. 

c. That those whose hearts are renewed in infancy, if such there 
are, must form an exception to our first statement (a). 

§ ii. By whom is Regeneration effected ? 

1. A general answer to this question may be found in such pas¬ 
sages as follow: John 1:13; 1 John 3:9; 5:1,18; 1 Pet. 1 : 
3 ; James 1: 18 ; Rom. 12 : 3 ; Ez. 36: 26 ; 11: 19 ; Jer. 24: 7; 31: 
33; Deut. 30 : 6. In all these places the work of regeneration is 
assigned to God. Without affirming or denying anything in re¬ 
spect to the ability or responsibility of man in the case, they dis¬ 
tinctly aver that, as a matter of fact, God is the author of the new 
disposition or life of the soul. 

2. A more specific answer to our question is contained in the 
following passages, viz : John 3 : 3, 5, 6 ; Tit. 3 : 5; 1 Cor. 12: 3, 
9, 13 ; 1 Pet. 1: 2 ; 2 Thess. 2 : 13 ; Rom. 8: 2, sq.; Gal. 5:5; (cf. 
Rom. 12 : 3 ;) Ez. 36 : 27. These portions of the Sacred Record 
ascribe the work of regeneration to the Holy Spirit, most of them 
unambiguously; yet there may seem to be reason for doubt in 
respect to 1 Pet. 1: 2, and 2 Thess. 2: 13. We believe, however, 
that the term uyuxcryog may refer to the giving of spiritual life at 
the outset, or to the perfecting of it afterwards, — regeneration or 
sanctification , — or finally, to the whole process described by these 
two words. We also think that in the passages before us it relates 
chiefly to the former, though the latter may not be wholly ex¬ 
cluded. Regeneration is obviously the first and most important 
step in sanctification. 

We may now remark — 

a. The fact that regeneration is frequently ascribed to God, is no 
valid objection to the view that it is always wrought by the Holy 
Spirit as a person. Observe the similar fact in regard to the work 
of creation, which is sometimes ascribed to God and sometimes to 
Christ. 

b. The Spirit of God, there is reason to believe, regenerates the 


SOTERIOLOG Y. 


153 


soul instantaneously. There can be no such thing as a gradual 
regeneration; no period in a man’s spiritual history when he is 
neither for Christ nor against him. 

c. The working of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is not per¬ 
ceived by the human consciousness. Indeed, the soul of man in 
this life is never conscious of any spiritual influence which is 
brought to bear directly upon it. Neither God, nor angels, nor 
demons, can be recognized by the soul on which they are acting. 
Their presence can only be inferred from the thoughts and desires 
which are awakened by them. (Prophets?) 

d. The regenerating action of the Holy Spirit is not therefore 
in any instance directly and consciously resisted. The phrase 
“ irresistible grace ” is, then, likely to mislead rather than instruct 
the mind; for it suggests the idea of something which is so pow¬ 
erful as to’ overcome all the resistance which the will of man can 
make, rather than of something which acts below the conscious¬ 
ness of man, and which he cannot therefore try to resist. Indeed, 
it is absurd to speak of resistance to a creative act. 

e. The regenerative agency of the Holy Spirit is not, we sup¬ 
pose, assisted by the co-operation of man; certainly not by his 
intelligent and intentional co-operation ; for no man can co-operate 
with that of which he is totally unconscious. Besides, the very 
language chosen to express the Spirit’s agency in this matter seems 
to preclude any co-operation on the part of man. The man is said 
to be begotten again of God, or of the Spirit of God; to be cre¬ 
ated anew in Christ Jesus ; and to be raised from the dead by the 
power of God. All these expressions show that the work is per¬ 
formed exclusively by a divine agent. Hence, we reject the syn¬ 
ergistic theory of regeneration. 

f The action of the Holy Spirit in regeneration does not con¬ 
flict in the slightest degree with the free action of the human soul. 
It does not violate its laws or abridge its liberty any more than 
did the action by which the soul was brought into existence. And 
as a matter of fact we suppose that the soul is generally active at 
the instant of regeneration, — intensely active, — and that too with 
reference to the work of Christ, or its own sinfulness, or the 
benevolence of God. It cries for mercy; it sees the evil of sin; it 
submits to Christ, etc. 


20 


154 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


§ m. With the use of what Means is JRegeneration effected ? 

In reply to this question, we say: With the use of Christian 
Truth; and appeal for proof— 

1. To explicit declarations of this fact in the Word of God; 
e. g. 1 Pet. 1: 23; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 4 : 15. 

Notes. 1 Pet. 1: 23. Some have distinguished between (nropfis and \6yov in this 
verse, making the former refer to the Holy Spirit and the latter to the gospel. He 
Wette, and Steiger. 

a. Because ck denotes properly the source, and <ha, the means. 

b. Because airnpd is equivalent to antppa, which in 1 John 3: 9, represents the Holy 
Spirit. Cf. 2 Pet. 1: 4; John 1: 13. 

Huther contends that we must understandby “ incorruptible seed ” the divine power 
dwelling in the Word of God; the Holy Spirit, not in distinction from the Word, but in 
his oneness with the Word, being as it were the soul of the Word. 

Most interpreters, however, understand Sia Xdyuv to be explanatory of atropai. Of 
these three interpretations we adopt the first, but esteem the third pref trable to the 
second. According to the first and the third, we have the Word of God here repre¬ 
sented as the means or instrument of regeneration. 

James 1: 18. dnoicvuv may have been used in this place by James instead of the 
usual term dvayewav , because he had already employed it in verse 15 above; especially 
as the addition of “by the word of truth,” w T ould destroy all ambiguity by directing 
the minds of his readers to the new birth. The “ word of truth ” is made in this pas¬ 
sage the instrument by which regeneration is effected. 

1 Cor. 4: 15. Here the words “ in Christ Jesus ” points to the real source of the new 
life of the Corinthians; “through the gospel” to the means by which it was produced; 
while the pronoun “ I ” refers to the agent who used the means. The whole verse ex¬ 
presses the same thoughts as are contained in 1 Cor. 2: 4, 6. Cf. also Gal. 4:19. 

In support of our answer to the question at the head of this 
section, we appeal,— 

2. To declarations of the Word of God which imply its truth. 
E. g. Rom. 10 : 17; Matt. 28 : 19; Mark 16: 15, and the like. 1 , 

It appears, then, that in some important sense the Word of God 
is the means or instrument by which regeneration is effected. But 
how shall this be explained without denying the direct agency of 
the Spirit in renewing the heart ? How shall this be reconciled 
with the view that the work of regeneration takes place below the 
consciousness? We reply: The doctrine of these passages may 
be brought into harmony with our previous statements by adopt¬ 
ing either of the following hypotheses, viz: — 

a. That the term regeneration, etc. in these texts, includes the 
first conscious working of the new life; that is to say, is used in 
the second and broader sense given to it above. For it is obvious 
that there can be no holy affection or volition except in view of 
truth. Religious truth is the indispensable means and condition of 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


155 


Christian experience or holy living; and no less in the very begin¬ 
ning of it than at any subsequent stage. 

b. That regeneration is effected by the joint agency of the Holy 
Spirit and of Christian truth. In this case it is assumed that re¬ 
ligious truth has a certain tendency, when it enters the mind of a 
moral being, to give it a right moral bias or disposition, but that 
its force is quite unequal to the resistance which it encounters in 
the depraved heart of man. Hence, there must be applied some 
additional and far more potent energy. This is done by the Holy 
Spirit; but only, as a general rule, when the truth is exerting its 
full power. Such is the wise arrangement of God; not indeed for 
the purpose of supplementing the inadequate power of the Spirit, 
but for the purpose of connecting the labors of his people with the 
salvation of men. 

c. This regeneration is effected by Christian truth energized by 
the Holy Spirit. In this case, the Spirit of God is not supposed 
to act at all directly upon the soul, but mediately through the 
Word. The whole process is therefore under the eye of con¬ 
sciousness. The moral nature is renewed by the proper force of 
truth as it is brought home by the Spirit of God. The heart is 
changed by a divine illumination of the understanding. 

To this view there are insuperable objections — 

1. It does not agree with the testimony of God’s Word. For 
the Bible traces the sinfulness of men, not to their ignorance of 
the truth, nor to the imperfect way in which truth is presented to 
their minds, but to their rejection and hatred of religious truth* 
Even Satan, we should naturally infer from the language of Scrip¬ 
ture, understands well the character and government of God, but 
is opposed to both. 

2. It does not agree with the testimony of consciousness. For 
what Christian is not satisfied upon reflection that a secret, inscru¬ 
table change has taken place in his soul ? — a change which he can 
only describe by its effects ? Besides, there is often a conscious 
and bitter hostility to Christian truth up to the moment of regen¬ 
eration, and then at once a perfect acquiescence and delight in the 
same truth. Why this sudden and complete reversion of the moral 
taste ? On other subjects the feelings gradually change under the 
influence of truth. 

3. It does not agree with the testimony of reason. For it is 
unreasonable in view of all the facts before us to find the root of 
sin in human ignorance, rather than in a selfish dislike of the truth. 


156 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


But if it be found in the latter, then it is unreasonable to suppose 
that hatred can be changed to love by a more exact and forcible 
presentation of the very object of hatred. 

We believe, therefore, that this view of regeneration, as wrought 
mediately by the word of truth, without any immediate action of 
the Holy Spirit on the soul, is untenable; and hence that one of 
the two hypotheses previously stated must be true. We prefer 
the former, as equally scriptural and more reasonable. 

But we must consider another point. Many hold that regener¬ 
ation is effected by means of or in connection with baptism as a 
sacrament. Before explaining the passages which are alleged in 
support of this opinion, it will be proper to weigh the following 
facts, viz: — 

1. In the apostolic age baptism was preceded by repentance, 
faith, etc. Acts 2: 37-41; 8: 12 ; 16 : 14, 31, 32, 33 ; 18: 8 ; (cfi. 
Matt. 28 : 19; Mark 16 : 16 ; Matt. 3: 1-11; Mark 1: 4, 5 ; Luke 
3 : 8.) In modern times, multitudes have given good evidence of 
piety before their baptism. {Cfi. Matt. 7: 16, 20.) 

2. Baptism was administered by the apostles to those who were 
already filled with the Holy Spirit. Acts 10 : 44-48. 

3. Baptism is described by the apostle Peter as “ the answer 
of a good conscience.” 1 Pet. 3: 21. But a good conscience is 
the fruit of regeneration. ( Of. 1 Tim. 1: 5, 19 ; 3:9; 2 Tim. 1: 
3; Heb. 9: 14; 10:22; 13: 18.) 

4. Administering the ordinance of baptism was esteemed by 
Paul subordinate to the work of preaching. 1 Cor. 1: 17, 
18, 21. 

5. Paul’s claims to have begotten the Corinthian Christians by 
the gospel, while he disclaims baptizing them, except in a few in¬ 
stances. 1 Cor. 4 : 15 ; 1: 14, 15. 

With these facts before us, we are ready to examine the pas¬ 
sages which have been thought to establish the doctrine of bap¬ 
tismal regeneration, viz: John 3:5; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5 : 26 ; (cf 
1 Pet. 3 : 21; Acts 22 : 16.) 

On the first three of these we remark — 

a. Granting a reference to the rite of baptism in them, they do 
not prove the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in any of its 
forms. For it may be said truly, baptism is the symbol, the nor¬ 
mal and prescribed expression, of regeneration ; and no true be¬ 
liever in the first age of the church would have thought of any 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


157 


substitute for it in acknowledging the change which had been 
wrought in his soul and in professing openly his faith in Christ. 
Hence, the inward change and the outward expression of it must 
have been much more closely united in the minds of Christians 
than they are now. Each would suggest the other, and forms of 
speech would be transferred from one to the other. 

To apply this general statement, Christ in his discourse with Nico- 
demus virtually said, To be a true and accepted member of my 
kingdom on earth, you must indeed be emblematically regenerated 
by submitting to the rite of baptism; but this is by no means 
enough, you must also experience a renovation of heart by the 
Holy Spirit, — you must not only confess me openly, which you 
are unwilling to do, but also experience a great moral change, in 
order to be saved. ( Of.\ Rom. 10: 9.) 

b. It is by no means clear that either of these passages refers at 
all to the rite of baptism. This will be obvious on examination. 

Notes. John 3:5. “ Except a man be begotten of water and Spirit he cannot 
enter the kingdom of God.” Now, it may be said that vSarog is here employed to sig_ 
nify a source of moral purification. “ Water,” says Dr. Ripley, “ is here used to indi¬ 
cate a pure source of a new spiritual life; ” and Christ “immediately adds, in plain 
language, the author of this new birth.” Calvin interprets thus: “Acsi diceret 
Christus, neminem esse Dei filium, donee per aquam renovatus fuerit, hanc vero 
aquam esse Spiritum qui nos repurgat, et qui virtute sua in nos diffusa vigorem in- 
spirat ccelestis vitae, quum natura prorsus aridi simus.” See Isaiah 44: 3; (and cf. 
37: 7; John 7: 38, 39, with note H. in Hare’s Mission of the Comforter.) 

Titus 3:5. “ But according to his mercy he saved us, by the laver of regeneration 
and of the renewing of the Holy Spirit,” etc. 

Aovrpov, which signifies bath or bathing , does not here refer to the ordinance of bap¬ 
tism, but directly to regeneration conceived as a work by which the soul is cleansed 
from sin. According to this view, the words “ regeneration ” and “ renewing ” both 
depend upon the word “ laver,” and show the kind of bath or bathing that is meant. 
The term “laver ” may , however, have been suggested by the rite of baptism which so 
beautifully symbolizes the new birth; but this is not certain; and we sde no reason for 
assuming any closer connection between the language of this verse and the ordinance 
in question. 

Eph. 5: 26. “ That he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the laver (or bathing) 
of water, in the word.” The participial clause in this verse may refer to the same act 
which is expressed by the verb, or it may refer to a prior act. There is no gram¬ 
matical objection to either; but we prefer the latter view, inasmuch as it renders the 
participial clause more significant, by making it describe regeneration as a cleansing 
act, instead of merely indicating (figuratively) the way in which sanctification is 
effected. In our preference we agree with the best expositors. And if we are correct, 
it maybe said, either —1. That the words rw Xovrpu) tov vSarog are used tropically, 
to denote regeneration as an act of spiritual purification, and that the language was 
suggested by the custom of bridal lustrations, {cf. Esth. 2: 12; Ez. 16: 9.) Meyer 
admits that there is here an allusion to the bathings before marriage, though he sup¬ 
poses a direct reference to baptism. But if there is an allusion to those bathings, we 


158 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


perceive no sufficient reason for assuming any reference at ail to baptism. If bap¬ 
tismal regeneration were with us, as it is with many, a foregone conclusion, we should 
find it in this verse; but not otherwise; for the verse itself can be readily explained 
without the aid of that unscriptural dogma. Or, 2. That the words in question are 
used tropically to signify regeneration as a spiritual cleansing, and that the language 
was suggested by the rite of baptism. In this case the passage is parallel with the 
preceding one, (Titus 3:5;) in so far, at least, as the question of baptism is concerned. 
There is no proper reference to it in either. 

It must, however, be added, that we are not required to believe there is any allusion 
either to bridal purifications or to the ordinance of baptism, in our passage. The 
work of the Holy Spirit in renewing the heart might be described figuratively as a 
cleansing by the bath of water; simply because bathing was a customary way of 
cleansing the body in the East. 

But whatever view we may take of the words, r<3 Xovrpu rov vSarog , the words iv 
prjpari point us to the actual instrument of purification and sanctification. 

1 Peter 3: 21. Sense: “ Which element also now, in the antitype, baptism, saves us, 
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” If our position, that a “ good conscience 
toward God ” is a fruit of regeneration, be correct, then this passage does not teach 
baptismal regeneration, whatever else it may teach. Indeed, it is one thing to say that 
baptism is a saving ordinance, and quite another to say it is a regenerating ordinance. 
The passing of Noah and his family through the water of the deluge was in a certain 
sense a saving process, and the water a saving element to them; but a hundred other 
things were no less essential to their escape than the water; and this seems to have 
been specially named by the apostle, because it could be used as a type of baptism 
through which a man passes in his way to everlasting life. To generalize: obedience 
to Christ is ordinarily necessary to salvation, and so in a certain sense it saves one; 
yet obedience does not regenerate the soul. In the apostolic age, baptism was the 
primary act of obedience; and no one, it may be presumed, could then have refused 
to perform this duty while expecting to be saved by Christ. In a word, the apostle 
intended to say that baptism saves us in no other or higher sense than “ works ” jus¬ 
tified Abraham and Rahab. See James 2: 21, 24, 25. 

But compare on this passage Turretin, iv. p.332, (De Baptismo nubis et maris, 
xvn.) and J. T. Smith on the Covenant of Circumcision, p. 48, sq. 

Acts 22: 16. “ Arise and have thyself baptized, and bathe away thy sins,” etc. On 
this passage Calvin remarks: “ Inasmuch, then, as baptism assists our faith to receive 
the remission of sins from the blood of Christ alone, it is called the laver of the soul. 
Thus the ablution of which Luke makes mention does not signify the cause of pardon, 
but it relates to the mind of Paul, which, on receiving this symbol, would recognize 
with more ease the expiation of its own sins.” Prof. Hackett compares this passage 
with Acts 2: 38, and says that “ in both passages baptism is represented as having 
this importance or efficacy, because it is the sign of the repentance and faith which 
are the conditions of salvation.” Prof. Hodge remarks that, “ when any declaration 
or service is the appointed means of professing faith and obedience, making such dec¬ 
laration, or performing such service, is said to secure the blessings which are prom¬ 
ised to the faith thei'eby professed.” (Way of Life, p. 267.) To understand these two 
passages, it is necessary for us to remember that in the apostolic age it was indispen¬ 
sable, when possible — 

a. To be baptized into the name of Christ, in order to confess him before men. He 
himself prescribed this way of professing faith in him. 

b. To confess him before men, in order to be saved by him. ( Cf. Matt. 10: 32, 33; 
12: 30; Luke 14: 26, 27, 33.) 

R. a. By the limiting clause, “ when possible,” we design to except such cases as 
the following: — 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


159 


1. Those who had not bodily health or strength to be baptized. 

2. Those who could not find a suitable person to administer the ordinance. 

3. Those who were prevented from receiving it by the authority of their parents. 

4. Those who were prevented solely by a distrust of their own piety. 

R. b. Baptism has never been a condition of salvation, except as obedience to the 
known will of Christ is such a condition. 

§ IV. What are the Antecedents of Regeneration 

in Man. 

No definite answer can be given to this question. Observation, 
experience, and the Word of God, may perhaps suggest a few 
things which almost uniformly precede the new birth, and that is 
all. E. g. They authorize us, it seems, to believe that regenera¬ 
tion is ordinarily restricted to those — 

1. Who give earnest heed to the gospel. Rom. 10: 13-17. 

2. Who are fully convinced of their own guilt. John 16 : 8, 9; 
Acts 2: 37. 

3. Who are truly anxious to be saved. Acts 2 : 37; 16: 30. 

4. Who feel their need of help and pardon in order to be saved. 

R. a. By calling these “ antecedents,” instead of “ conditions,” 

we mean to guard against the following errors: — 

1. That when realized, they place God under the least obligation 
to regenerate the soul. 

2. That when realized, they constitute the reason why God per¬ 
forms this work. 

It is true, on the one hand, that no impenitent man is able to 
claim any blessing as promised to him, and on the other hand, 
that no impenitent man is able to do anything which is in itself a 
good reason why God should renew his heart. {Cf. Tur. i. p. 318, 
sq.; and Backus’s “ Call,” p. 48.) 

R. b. Hence we are ignorant of the reasons which have led 
Jehovah to elect , renew , and save those particular members of our 
race who are thus favored. James 1: 18 ; 1 Peter 1: 1-3 ; Gal. 
1: 15, 16; Eph. 1: 4, 5, 11; 2 Tim. 1: 9; Rom. 8: 28-30; 9: 
11-24; Acts 13: 48. 

God’s purpose and action in this case, as in every other, rest of 
course upon good and sufficient reasons; but the passages just 
cited forbid uS to find those reasons in the moral action of men 
before their conversion, and refer us merely to the sovereign 
pleasure and mercy of God. {Cf. Tur. i. p. 318, sq.) 

Notes. James 1: 18. According to some, this verse illustrates the foregoing verse 
by bringing forward a signal specimen of good gifts from God; according to others, 


160 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


this verse is a special deduction from the general thought of the preceding verse. 
The former is correct. The apostle brings forward the case of regeneration as instar 
omnium . The will of God produces moral good, not moral evil, as, e. g. the work of 
regeneration shows. /3ov\ri$tU, says De Wette, “ adds to the idea of the verb that of 
spontaneous self-movement, cf. Eph. 1: 11.” “ What would it signify,” says Calvin, 
“ to deny that God was compelled to do this ? James expresses something more, viz: 
that God of his own good purpose begat us, and so was the cause of his own action. 
Whence it follows that it is natural for God to do good.” • 

1 Peter 1: 1-3. Kara irpoyvwaiv is here to be construed with ck’Xckto'is ; and Kara 
marks the regulating source, thus differing slightly from £*, which marks simply the 
source, (cf. v. 3.) “ xpoyvwatv” says De Wette, “does not signify the pnevisio fade! 
(Calov.), but is equivalent to /?ot>Arj (l Peter 1: 20; Acts 2: 23; Rom. 8: 29,) or 
TTpoU/jicruos ? (Eph. 1: 5.) In this last passage the evSoKia is conceived to be the ground 
of the predestination.” “ Gerhard,” says Huther, “ rightly explains ■npdyvioais as the 
purpose according to which the election was made. Moreover, by the words Kara 
irpoyvwaiv, etc. human desert in reference to election is excluded.” 

Gal. 1: 15, 16. “ But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s 
womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me,” etc. By saying that God 
set him apart from his very birth, Paul intends to affirm that the divine choice in his 
case was primary and absolute. ( Cf. Luke 12: 32; 1 Cor. 1: 21; Col. 1: 19; and 
Luke 1: 15; James 1:5; Rom. 9: 11.) Calvin, De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Bengel, 
Riickert, Hackett. 

Eph. 1: 4, 5, 9, 11. Here we are taught — 1. That election (v. 4) and predestination 
(v. 5, 11) should be referred to the good purpose of God (v. 9) as their original source. 
2. That they were made before the foundation of the world, (v. 4.) 3. That they 
presuppose the work of Christ, (v. 4, 5, cf. Acts 2: 23.) 4. That they terminate in 
particular persons, (v. 4, 11, 13.) 5. That they contemplate, as an important end, the 
sanctification of those individuals, (v. 4.) 

2 Tim. 1: 9. This verse expresses in fewer words the same truths which are taught 
by the preceding passage. {Cf. Huther, Wiesinger, Alford, Calvin, Bengel, Ellicott.) 
Says Ellicott, “ iiiav rrp6§£oiv: ‘Ills own purpose;' observe the t6iav ; that purpose 
which was suggested by nothing outward, but arose only from the innermost depths 
of the divine eiSoKia” etc. npd xp° vwv diwi/iwi/ signifies here “ from all eternity.” The 
meaning is suggested rather than fully represented by the phrase, “ before the world 
began.” 

Rom. 8: 28-30. Here verse 28 traces back the calling of men from death to life to 
the purpose of God, and so agrees with the view we have given. But verse 29 is said 
by some to point us, in the words ov( rrpoeyvu), to an act of the divine mind logically 
prior to purpose or election, and to prove that election is based upon some foreseen 
act of the elect. Hence Ave inquire: — 

1. Whether npocyvro here refers to simple foreknowledge ? Such interpreters as Calvin, 
Riickert, Usteri, Tholuck, Stuart, Hodge, De Wette, and the like, reply in the nega^ 
tive. De Wette, however, adds that “ the verbal sense of the term is to foreknow; but 
in an analysis of the thought, the knowing is the first element of the predestination, 
just as knoAvledge goes before every determination.” 

But, were it granted that rrpoeyv where signifies simpl y “lie foreknew," we should 
inquire — 

2. To Avhat quality or act of the elect does this foreknoAvledge relate? 

Pelagians reply, “to their faith;" and Philippi thus explains his view as a 
Lutheran: “ Their adaptation or qualification to be elected must not, according to 
Paul, be found in their moral excellence or good works, but only in their faith. Be¬ 
lievers are therefore “ called according to his purpose,” which is entirely free, and yet 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


161 


‘predestinated according to his foreknowledge;” which two things are in har¬ 
mony, if faith is the work of God , and not their oivn work ; hut not otherwise; if God in 
foreseeing their faith foresees nothing but themselves as his creation in Christ Jesus ; but 
not otherwise.” That is to say, if we can understand his language, God has purposed 
to call those whom he has purposed to renew by his grace; or, in other words, God 
has purposed to produce faith in the hearts of some, and, in view of this faith, has pre¬ 
destinated them to life. 

Our own view of verses 29 and 30 may be given as follows, {cf. 11: 2; and 1 Peter 
1 : 20 :) — 

а. They are simply an expansion of the previous clause, “ to them who are called 
according to his purpose.” 

h. They assign a reason for the statement, “ all things work together for good.” etc. 

c. They relate exclusively to the action of the divine mind in eternity. (Aorist.) 

d. They inseparably unite , if they do not identify , foreknowing, predestinating, call¬ 
ing, justifying, and glorifying, in this action of the divine mind. 

e. This action of the divine mind, in selecting certain lost men to be saved by free 
grace, was made in view of ample reasons, furnished by God’s knowledge of what it 
was right and best for him to do; and one of these reasons may possibly have been 
their special adaptation to subserve, as believers , the ends of his divine action. This, 
however, is a mere conjecture. Says Turretin: “Non quseritur, an ullse sint istius 
decreti causae penes Deum; ut enim sapientissimus est nihil d\oywg facit, et rationes 
dispensationis suae habet proculdubio gravissimas, licet illae nos lateant.” i. p. 318, sq. 

f. Such knowledge or foreknowledge is referred to, we suppose, in verse 29; and it 
does not conflict with the common view of election, nor with our account of 
regeneration. 

Rom. 9: 11-27. This passage teaches — 

1. That God’s selection of certain men to be saved is not determined by their con¬ 
duct before conversion, (v. 11-13.) 

2. That his purpose in regard to their salvation will not fail of being accomplished, 
(v. 11-16; cf. v. 6.) 

3. That his purpose and action do not destroy human accountability, (v. 19, sq.) 

4. That his purpose and action are in all respects suitable and right, (v. 14-16.) 

б. That his treatment of the non-elect is altogether righteous, (v. 17-21.) 

The result of our examination is, therefore, as given above, that we know not the 
reasons which have led Jehovah to elect, renew, and save the particular members of 
our race who are thus favored. 

Before leaving our present topic, we may properly consider a 
few questions which are apt to arise at this point, viz: — 

1. Does the Holy Spirit work at all in the hearts of any who are 
finally lost ? 

a. He does not thus work with the design of regenerating 
them. 

h. He may thus work for some other purpose; e. g. to convince 
them of sin. 

c. The Scriptures suggest , without indubitably affirming this 
view, John 16: 8; Rev. 22: 17; and less clearly, Acts 7: 51; (cf. 
Neli. 9: 30;) Rev. 3: 20; Gen. 6:3. 


21 


162 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


2. If he does work in the hearts of any such , does he in the 
hearts of all ? 

Reply. We cannot say. 

3. If he does work in the hearts of all , does he with equal 
energy ? 

Reply. We cannot say; yet probably not. 

4. If he does not work with equal energy in the hearts of all, 
does he work with an energy proportioned to the stubbornness of 
each ? so that all may be placed in a position equally favorable to 
repentance. 

Reply. We have no grounds on which to rest an affirmative 
answer. Yet it cannot be shown that he works with special en¬ 
ergy in hearts the least averse to good. 

5. Can his working in the heart be indirectly resisted ? 

Reply. We suppose it can. Religious truth may be repelled, 
the monitions of conscience disregarded, and the servants of God 
opposed. (Cf. Acts 7 : 51.) All this may be an indirect resistance 
of the Holy Spirit. 

6. If so, is the Holy Spirit’s working arrested by such re¬ 
sistance ? 

Reply. Perhaps it is. 

7. Do those who are lost resist thus any more strenuously than 
those who are saved ? 

• Reply. We cannot affirm that they do. 

8. In what sense, then, is God “ no respecter of persons ? ” 

Not, we reply, in the sense that he treats all moral beings exactly 

alike, doing as much for one as he does for another, endowing them 
all with the same or with equivalent powers, and placing them in 
the same or in equally favorable circumstances. To say nothing 
of the Scriptures, neither reason nor observation would favor such 
an interpretation. Our moral nature does not require it. True 
benevolence does not require it. The good rejoice that others are 
still wiser and better than they. The same may be said of the 
Scriptures, — they do not require it. There are orders of angels; 
some higher than others. There are differences among men, in 
intellect, and temperament, and training. The inhabitants of Tyre 
and Sidon were less favored religiously than those of Chorazin and 
Bethsaida. Yet Mr. Clark, in his Pitts Street Chapel Lecture, 
says “ that in his opinion the conditions of human probation are 
such as to afford all the human race an absolutely equal opportunity 


S0TERI0L0GY. 


163 


to be saved,” p. 27. He represents the Methodist ministry as 
“ everywhere boldly confuting the prevalent notions which restrict 
either the atonement, or any of the agencies for carrying out its 
provisions, giving one individual or one portion of the human fam¬ 
ily an advantage over another.” lb. Anything short of this ap¬ 
pears to Mr. Clark at variance with the doctrine that God is no 
respecter of persons. 

On the other hand, Isaac Backus says that “ if the matter be 
examined, we shall find that ‘ the respect of persons ’ so often con¬ 
demned [in the Word of God], is a ‘perverting judgment,’ through 
a wrong bias, so as to show that regard to some and disregard to 
others which are unjust,” {Faith will Produce Good Works, p. 53,) 
while at the same time he admits and maintains that God bestows 
peculiar grace upon the elect. To understand the phrase in ques¬ 
tion, it will be necessary to study the following passages, viz: 
Dent. 10: 17; 1 Sam. 16: 7; Job 34: 19; 2 Chron. 19:7; Acts 
10:34,35; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6; Eph.6:9; Col. 3:25; 1 Pet. 
1:17; (cf. Matt. 22 : 16 ; Mark 12: 14; Luke 20: 21; James 2 : 
1; Jude 16.) 

These passages teach us — 

a. That God is a supremely equitable ruler, dealing with men 
according to their real character. His judgment is never warped 
by distinctions of birth, or rank, or talent. 

b. That he offers his favor to all men on the same terms; he 
requires of them all, without distinction, the same disposition, in 
order to their being accepted in his sight. 

c. That he takes proper account in his treatment of men of the 
providential peculiarities in their several conditions; e. g. making 
due allowance in the case of pagans for their ignorance of Christ. 

R. a. Hone of these passages refer to the election of grace. 

R. b. God’s grace to the elect is in no way hurtful or unjust to 
the non-elect. 

§ v. What are the First Fruits of Regeneration in the Soul ? 

As to the exact order in which these appear, we can affirm noth¬ 
ing. “ There is not a grace of the Holy Spirit,” says A. Fuller, 
“ which does not possess a portion of every other grace. Each has 
a distinctive character; and yet each is so blended with the other, 
that, in dissecting one, you must cut through the veins of all,” n. 
p. 408. “ Can you tell which spoke of the wheel moves first ? ” 


164 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


said Elon Galusha. “You may be looking at one spoke and think 
that moves first, but they all start together. Thus, all the graces 
of the Spirit begin at the same instant to affect the penitent soul, 
though the individual may be more conscious of one than of 
another.” 

We may, however, specify the following as among the first fruits 
of regeneration, viz : — 

1. Spiritual discernment. This we look upon as logically prior 
to every pious emotion or affection. For if it is a fruit of regen¬ 
eration at all, it must obviously precede pious emotions, since these 
are excited by the contemplation of truth. The priority is how¬ 
ever purely logical. 

2. Christian love. And by this we mean a supreme delight in 
God as revealed by Jesus Christ; and in general a truly benevo¬ 
lent disposition. We mention it before faith, not because it pre¬ 
cedes the latter either logically or temporally, but merely because 
it is a simple exercise. 

3. Christian faith. By this we mean a hearty belief of what¬ 
ever God has revealed in his Word, and especially a reliance upon 
Christ for salvation ; in other words, a true assent and consent to 
the doctrine of Christ. 

We subjoin a few definitions of this cardinal grace: — 

a. Turretin says, “ Fides est virtus spiritualis, qua homo totum Dei verbum pro vitai 
canone, et Christum pro Salvatore accepit.” 

b. Melanctlion says, “ Fides est assentiri universo verbo Dei nobis proposito, et qui- 
dem promissioni gratuitce reconciliationis donate propter Christum Mediatorem; estque 
fiducia misericordise Dei promissas propter Christum Mediatorem,” etc. p. 189. 

c. Pictet says, “ Per primum actum, persuadendum, Christum esse verum Messiam 
promissum, unicum datum hominibus nomen, ut salutem consequamur. Secundus 
actus fidei est, quo persuadendum non modo in genere, Christum esse servatorem, sed 
esse servatorem corum , qui peccatorum poenitentia ducti in eo solo quoerunt veram 
justitiam ac salutem. Tertius actus fidei est, quo nostraj miseriae conscii ex nobismet 
ipsis quasi prodimus et propriae justitiae remittentes Christo nos totos tradimus ipsique 
arctissime adhceremus .” 

d. Ebrard says it is “ the act of a converted man, by which he embraces Christ with 
his righteousness and all his benefits as the only fountain of his salvation, relies on 
him alone, and grounds all his hope of eternal life on him, and so fulfils the only con¬ 
dition of regeneration and justification.” 

R. In scholastic language, “ the formal object of faith is the veracity of God, the gen¬ 
eral material object is the Word of God, and the special material object is the gospel, 
or Christ himself. 

4. Christian Hepentance. This is equivalent to “ conversion.” 
It represents the aggregate religious exercises of a renewed soul, 
in contrast with its former views and feelings. To specify the most 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


165 


important of these exercises, we say repentance, as used in the 
New Testament, embraces “contrition” for sin, (not simply “at¬ 
trition,”) and “ faith ” in Christ. 

Says Melancthon, n. 4: “ Yoco pcenitentiam, ut in ecclesia loquimur, conversionem 
ad Deum, et hujus conversionis partes seu diversos motus, docendi causa, discemo. 
Dico partes esse: contritionem et fidem; has necessario sequi debet nova obedientia, 
quam si quis vult nominare tertiam partem, non repugno. He thus defines contrition 
(p. 12), “Ac vocamus contritionem, ut ecclesia usitate loquitur, pavores conscienti® 
agnoscentis iram Dei adversus nostra peccata et dolentis propter peccatum.” His defi¬ 
nition of faith has been already given. 

Ebrard, in like manner, separates conversion into two parts, contrition and faith, and 
defines contrition the “ actus hominis naturalis, qua, Spirito Sancto adjuvante et du- 
cente, intimam suam miseriam, culpam et impotentiam agnoscit, et de ipso, propri- 
isque tam meritis quam viribus desperat, salutemque a Deo desiderat.” He adds that 
the subject of repentance is the natural man in the very act of turning to God; the 
cause is the converting grace of the Holy Spirit given by the Father and leading to the 
Son; and the condition, the non-resistance of the human will.” We do not of course 
indorse this language, for we believe that true repentance and faith follow regenera¬ 
tion. 

/ r 

We further remark that /ieiuvoia sometimes refers chiefly to 
contrition , yet without excluding faith ; e. g. Acts 20 : 21; 26: 20 ; 
8 : 22 ; 2 Cor. 12:21; (cf. 2 Cor. 7: 9, 10.) But it is never em¬ 
ployed in the New Testament to designate mere regret or remorse 
(attrition) without any radical change of the moral disposition. 

5. Christian hope. This relates to one’s own salvation through 
Christ, and is always logically and in most instances chronologically 
subsequent to faith, love, etc. 

Topic II.— Justification. 

We shall endeavor to ascertain — 

§ i. The Import of Justification. 

§ ii. The Author of Justification. 

§ in. The Ground of Justification. 

§ iv. The Condition of Justification. 

§ v. The Rationale of Justification. 

§ i. What is meant by the term Justification , in Christian 

Theology f 

We can hardly expect to give a perfectly satisfactory answer to 
this question. If, however, we draw our definition of this term 
from the use of < hxcuoavvi] and dixcudco in the New Testament, it 
will be found to signify, absolving one from the charge of guilt, 


166 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


and treating him accordingly; or, pronouncing one righteous be¬ 
fore the law, and treating him accordingly. There is, indeed, not 
a little to be ui'ged in defence of the old view that justification 
comprises two things, viz : pardon and adoption. See Turretin, 11 . 
277, sq. For dixuioavvrj seems to be used at times by the sacred 
writers as synonymous with pardon / E. g. Mark 1: 4; 
Luke 1: 77; 3: 3; 24: 47; Acts 2: 38; 5: 31; 10: 43; 13: 38, 
39; 26: 18; Rom. 4: 5-7; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1: 14; and at others 
as synonymous with adoption. E. g. John 1: 12 ; 5 : 24, 40 ; 20: 
31; Rom. 5 : 9-11; 8 : 1, 2, 17; Gal. 4 : 4, 5 ; Tit. 3:7; James 2 : 
23; Rev. 1: 5, 6. It may be conceded that the idea of adoption, 
of acknowledging and treating one as a son, approaches somewhat 
nearer to that of justification than does the idea of pardon ; yet 
neither of them exhibits the action of God in the same light as 
justification; nor do they both make up the idea of justification. 
To pardon a man, is to assert by implication his guilt; while to jus¬ 
tify a man, is to pronounce him innocent. Yet these two acts may 
have almost the same effect upon a man’s relation to the law. 
They both make him rectus in curia. So in the case before us. 
God pardons no one whom he does not justify ; he justifies no 
one whom he does not pardon. The two acts are separable in 
thought, but not in fact; for God has joined them together. We 
adhere, then, to our definition, although many passages of the JSTew 
Testament employ the terms pardon and justification as if they 
were synonymous. 

R. Those who insist upon making the act of justification include 
pardon and adoption, or pardon and a title to endless life, are in¬ 
fluenced by their belief that the elect have the full benefit of 
Christ’s obedience as well as suffering; that he not only died for 
them, but served for them; that he not only bore for them the 
penalty of their sins, but earned for them a right to heaven. Says 
Chalmers, “You will thus understand (n. 54) the difference between 
a negative and a positive justification. By the one we are relieved 
from the penalties of transgression, by the other we obtain a part 
and an interest in the promises of obedience. To achieve the 
first, Christ is said to have borne the chastisement of our peace; 
to achieve the second, Christ is said to have fulfilled all righteous¬ 
ness.” 

All this may perhaps be true, and yet it does not prove that par¬ 
don is strictly an element of justification. If we are not mistaken, 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


167 


Christians are sometimes contemplated in the Word of God as 
separate moral agents, and the treatment which they receive from 
God is described in language adjusted to their character as separ¬ 
ate agents, while at other times they are contemplated as members 
of the body of Christ, their relation to God being determined by 
that of their divine head, and the treatment which they receive is 
then described in language adjusted to the character and claims 
of their Head. In the former case, they are said to be pardoned; 
in the latter, they are said to be justified. Hence, pardon and 
justification may point to the same result, and be used inter¬ 
changeably. 

§ n. ' Who is the Author , or What is the Source of Justification ? 

1. The Author of Justification is declared to be God. Rom. 1: 
17; 3:21,22,26,30; 4:5; 8:30,33; 10: 3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 
3 : 8. It is not perhaps certain that God, the Father, is distinc¬ 
tively meant in all these passages ; yet it is pretty evident that the 
apostle does in some of them refer to him; and hence it will be 
safe to regard him as by way of office and distinction the Jus¬ 
tifies 

2. The act of justification is also traced especially to the grace 
of God as its source. Rom. 3: 24; 4: 4, 16; 5: 15; 11: 5, 6; 
Eph. 1: 6, 7; (cf. John 3 : 16; 1 John 4: 9, 10, 19; Acts 20 : 24; 
1 Cor. 1: 4; Eph. 2: 7, 8; 2 Thess.2: 16; Tit. 2: 11.) 

R. Justification is conceived of as an act of grace, because the 
believer as a separate agent is not entitled to it, but receives it as 
a free gift. 


§ hi. What is the Ground of Justification ? 

By the u ground ” of justification we mean the moral basis or 
sufficient reason in the government of God for this act; to use the 
language of a previous section, we mean K that in consideration of 
which ” the believer is justified. And the reply to our question, 
thus explained, must obviously be, the vicarious work of Christ , 
consisting pre-eminently in his death. An answer which may be 
supported — 

1. By the direct testimony of God’s Word. E. g. Rom. 3 : 24, 
25; 5:9, 18, 19; Eph. 1:7; Gal. 3:13. 

2. By the indirect testimony of God’s Word. E. g. Matt. 26 : 


168 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


28; 1 Cor. 1:80; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; Col. 1: 14; 
Heb. 9: 22; 1 Pet. 2: 24; (cfi also Luke 24: 47; Acts 2 : 38.) 

We do not see how the force of this evidence can be withstood. 

§ iv. What is the Condition of Justification f 

By “ the condition,” as these words are here employed, we mean 
strictly and simply the sine qua non condition, the prerequisite, or 
medium, but not the sufficient cause or reason; we mean a state 
of action in the human soul which removes an insuperable ob¬ 
stacle to the divine act of justification, but which is no proper basis 
for that act. Thus explained, we say that “the condition ” of jus¬ 
tification is, on the part of man, faith in Christ; and appeal for 
proof to such passages as follow: Mark 16: 16 ; John 3 : 36; 6 : 
40; Acts 16: 31; Gal. 2: 16; 3: 22; 1 John 5: 10, 12; Rom. 3: 
22, 28; 4: 5, 13, 14; 5:1; Gal. 3: 6, sq. and 26; Eph. 2:8; 3: 
17 ; Phil. 3:9; Heb. 11: 6. 

It is plain from these texts that trust in Christ, not repentance 
for sin, nor love to God, is the proper medium or condition of jus¬ 
tification. And it is our belief that a disposition of heart whose 
moral qualities were essentially the same as • those of intelligent 
faith in Christ, has been possessed by every one of the human race 
that has been saved. 

§ v. What is the Rationale of Justification f 

If any satisfactory reply can be made to this question, the ele¬ 
ments of it must be found, we think, in the two following po¬ 
sitions. 

1. Faith unites the soul of the believer with Christ. See John 
1: 12; 6 : 35 ; 15: 1, sq.; Rom. 12 : 5 ; 1 Cor. 12 : 12, 27; Gal. 2 : 
20; 3:16; Eph. 5: 29, sq. in addition to the texts cited in the 
foregoing section. 

2. Union with Christ secures to the believer the benefits of 
Christ’s work. What the believer by himself does not deserve, 
i. e. life , Christ does deserve ; and what the believer does in him¬ 
self deserve, i. e. death , Christ has suffered for him. (Cf. 2 Tim. 
1 : 10 .) 

In short, the rationale of justification is contained in the single 
fact of the believer’s spiritual and legal union with Christ. 

Making this fact our starting-point, we may say — 



SOTEKIOLOGY. 


169 


1. That Christ, by his Spirit, regenerates the elect, and leads 
them to exercise genuine faith, thus uniting them with himself as 
Redeemer. 

2. That their sins are now forgiven in consideration of what He 
with whom they are made one has suffered in their behalf. 

3. That, for the same reason, they are treated, although sinful, 
as belonging to the category of the righteous, — this treatment 
comporting as well with the divine righteousness as it would if 
they were personally righteous. 

4. That, for the same reason, they are treated as sons of God by 
adoption, and are made joint heirs with Christ to a glory which 
they could not have received in reward of personal righteousness, 
even had they never sinned. 

5. That by his Spirit Christ perpetuates and strengthens in 
them here the new life of faith, thus preparing them for this ex¬ 
ceeding weight of glory hereafter. 

Again, making union with Christ our starting-point, we may say 
in general, that the work of Christ is so imputed to every believer 
that he receives the benefit of it. Rom. 5: 18, 19; 1 Cor. 1: 30 ; 
2 Cor. 5 : 21; or, to be more specific — 

a. The death of Christ is so imputed to him. Rom. 5: 19; 2 
Cor. 5 : 15, 21. 

b. The obedience of Christ is so imputed to him. Rom. 8:17. 

R. a. It is only by inference from such passages as the one here 

cited, and from those which teach the believer’s union with Christ, 
that our second statement ( b ) can be justified. The usual argu¬ 
ment, that the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law is 
necessary to give the pardoned sinner a title to heaven, is not 
conclusive. 

R. b. It must be remembered that the word imputation is not 
applied by us in a strict, rigorous, legal sense. For in that case 
the sinner would have no need of pardon. If Christ suffered the 
penalty of his sins, and that suffering of Christ is strictly and lit¬ 
erally made over to him, there is no place for pardon, he has paid 
the full penalty of the law; he may be justified, but not pardoned. 
Moreover, in that case, the believer would receive nothing from 
God as grace. The perfect obedience made over to him would 
give him a title or claim to the favor of God. 

R. c. Looking at the matter from this point of view, viz : that 
of pardon and free grace, it is plain that there is no confounding 


22 


170 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


of persons and characters in the scriptural doctrine of imputation, 
or of union with Christ. Hence, to say that God imputes to the 
believer the work of Christ, is in our judgment equivalent to say¬ 
ing that God gives the believer the full benefit of Christ’s work; 
God pardons and saves him in consideration of it; the believer’s 
Head has satisfied and honored the law, and God puts this to the 
believer’s account and treats him accordingly; yet the distinction 
of persons is not lost, but the believer receives everything as an 
unmerited favor, — all is grace. 

R. d. The spiritual union of the believer with Christ is such, that 
he has true fellowship with the work as well as the character of 
Christ; he indorses and accepts it so far as possible as his own; he 
acknowledges the law of God to be holy and the penalty of sin to 
be just; in dying to sin, he dies with Christ, entering into the 
meaning and necessity of the Saviour’s death, according to his 
feeble power, and even feeling that he would joyfully suffer in the 
same way and for the same end, the honor of God. Hence, we 
say that the imputation of Christ’s work is mediate , not imme¬ 
diate; it is put to the account of the believer , and not of the 
elect / a moral union and sympathy is the condition of imputation. 
We have previously called attention to this fact as casting some 
light on the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his 
posterity; and we find no reason to modify the remarks then 
made. 

R. e. The logical order of the process of redemption, so far as 

e have examined it, seems to be — 1. Regeneration by the Holy 
Spirit; 2. Union with Christ by faith; 3. Imputation of Christ’s 
work to the believer; 4. Justification on account of the work of 
Christ. 

As the rationale of justification is a matter of very great interest, 
we subjoin a few extracts which bear upon this topic. 

Says Neander: “ As Christ the holy can alone be, in an absolute sense, the object of 
divine love and complacency, so no man can be its object, except in connection with 
Christ." . . . “As one with him the redeemed are presented to the eye of God." 

“I have no doubt,” says A. Fuller, “that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness 
presupposes a union with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing bene¬ 
fits on one for another's sake , where there is no union or relation between. It is not 
such a union, however, as that the actions of either become those of the other. 
Obedience itself may be and is imputed , while its effects only are imparted." 

“ The justification of the believer,” says Jonathan Edwards, “ is no other than his 
being admitted to communion in the justification of the head and surety of all 
believers.” 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


171 


“ Union with Christ ,” says Litton, “ is the distinctive blessing of the gospel dispensa¬ 
tion, in which eveiy other is comprised, —justification, sanctification, adoption, and 
the future glorifying of our bodies: all these are but different aspects of the one great 
truth, that the Christian is one with Christ.” 

“ I attribute,” says Calvin, “ the highest importance to the connection between the 
head and members, — to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that being made 
ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished. Because he 
has deigned to unite us to himself, therefore we glory in a participation of his right¬ 
eousness.” 

Says John Bunyan: “Justifying righteousness is the doing and suffering of Christ 
when he was in the world.” “ When Jesus Christ fulfilled the righteousness of the 
law, it is said it was fulfilled in us because indeed fulfilled in our nature.” “ For 
there being a union between head and members, though things may be done by the 
head and that for the members, the things are counted to the members as if not done 
by the head.” “ Wherefore in this sense, we are said to do what only was done by 
him; even as the client doth by his lawyer, when his lawyer personates him.” But 
“ mark, the righteousness is still in Christ , not in us; even then when we are made 
partakers of the benefit of it; even as the wing and feathers still abide in the hen, when 
the chickens are covered, kept, and warmed thereby.” Justification by an Imparted 
Righteousness, p. 302, 304. 

Topic III. Sanctification. 

In treating this Topic we shall inquire — 

§ i. What is meant by Sanctification ? 

§ ii. j By whom is it wrought ? 

§ hi. With the Use of what Means ? 

§ iy. When is it completed? 

§ y. Is it ever finally arrested before Completion? 

§ i. What is meant by Sanctification ? 

This term, derived from the Latin Sanctificatio , signifies — 

1. The act of making holy, c (cfi. 1 Cor. 6: 11; Eph. 5: 
26; 1 Thes. 5: 23.) And by the word holy we mean, morally 
right and good. 

2. The process of becoming holy, (cfi. 2 Peter 3 : 18, where this 
process is called “growth in grace”) 

3. The state of holiness produced by the action noted above, 
(cfi. Rom. 6: 19, 22; 1 Thes. 4: 3, 4, 7; 1 Tim. 2: 15.) This 
seems to be the usual sense of dyiauyog in the New Testament. 

R. a. To avoid ambiguity we shall endeavor to use the term in 
the first of these three senses; though we may occasionally lapse 
into the second or third. 

R. b. In the first sense, sanctification consists in the gradual 
strengthening of faith, love, hope, etc. and in the gradual eradication 


172 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


of evil propensities, e. g. pride, avarice, lust, etc. On the use of the 
term sanctification, see Tur. 11 . p. 609; Mosh. 11 . p. 187; Hahn, 
and others. 


§ ii. By idiom is Sanctification wrought ? 

We reply, By the Holy Spirit. 

1. Because spiritual knowledge or discernment is traced to the 
Holy Spirit as its source. 1 Cor. 2: 13-15; 1 John 2: 20, 27; 
Eph. 1: 17 ; Col. 1: 9. 

Notes. In the first of these passages Paul represents the psychical or unrenewed man 
as unable to receive the things of the Spirit of God, because they are spii'itually judged 
or understood; while, on the other hand, the spiritual or renewed man rightly estimates 
or understands all things. The latter manifestly is one who is assisted by the Spirit 
of God to appreciate religious truth. 

In the second of these passages, John speaks of the Holy Spirit as an unction or 
anointing from Christ, the Holy One. “ By virtue of their fellowship with Christ,” 
says Neander, “ all who are redeemed by him are made partakers of the Holy Spirit 
which he imparts.” So also De Wette, Liicke, Calvin, and others, iravra is restricted 
by the context to the essential nature of the gospel, or to that which must be known 
by a Christian in order to detect whatever is anti-christian. 

2. Because the Christian virtues are traced to the Holy Spirit as 
their source. Gal. 5 : 22; Rom. 12 : 3; 1 Cor. 12 : 3, 9; 2 Cor. 
4: 13; (cf. Phil. 2: 13.) 

Notes. In the first of these passages (Gal. 5: 22), “ love, joy, peace, forbearance, 
kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control,” are said to be the fruit of the Spirit; 
and in verse 5 of the same chapter, the Christian’s expectant waiting for future accept¬ 
ance and glory is ascribed to the Spirit’s agency in his heart. 

In the second passage (Rom. 12: 3), Paul teaches that God gives to every believer 
the measure of faith which he possesses; and if we interpret this in harmony with 
1 Cor. 12: 3, 9, it will be seen that he gives this faith by the operation of the Holy Spirit 
in the soul. 

3. Because Christian conduct and worship are referred to the 
Holy Spirit as their source. Rom. 8 : 14; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 5 : 
18, 19. 

Notes. In the first of these texts (Rom. 8: 14), the sons of God are said to be led 
or moved by the Spirit; in the second, Christian prayer is ascribed to the influence of 
the Spirit, {cf. Rom. 8: 26, on which Augustine remarks: “Non Spiritus Sanctus in 
semetipso , — sed in nobis gemit, quia nos gemere facit; ”) and in the third (Eph. 5: 18, 
19), the proper singing of spiritual songs is made consequent on being filled with the 
Spirit, (cf. also 1 Cor. 14: 15; and Phil. 1: 6.) 

4. Because the Christian’s conflict with his evil propensities, and 
his victory over them, are traced to the Holy Spirit. Rom. 8 : 13 ; 
Gal. 5: 17. 

Notes. In the former of these passages (Rom. 8: 13), we are taught that by the 
assistance of the Spirit believers slay, or put an end to, the deeds of the flesh, those 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


173 


acts which are prompted by a carnal mind. And in the latter (Gal. 5: 17), the Spirit 
is said to strive, eagerly against the flesh, fcriSv/iet, (cf. v. 19 and 20.) 

5. Because the spiritual life of believers depends upon their 
union with Christ, who dwells in them by his Spirit. John 15 : 
1-6; 14: 16-21; Eph. 3: 16,17; Rom. 8 : 8-10; (c/. 1 Cor. 3 : 
16; 6: 19; Eph. 2: 22.) 

R. a. The doctrine of the Trinity underlies and explains the 
various representations here given. 

R. b. The indwelling or gracious working of the Spirit is, there¬ 
fore, really the indwelling of the Father and the Son as well. 

6. Because the work of sanctification is directly ascribed to the 
Holy Spirit. 2 Thes. 2 : 13 ; 1 Peter 1: 2 ; 2 Cor. 3 : 18. 

Notes. In the first of these texts, belief of the truth is placed in logical order after 
the Spirit’s working; that depends on this. In the second, election is said to be realized 
in sanctification wrought by the Spirit. Both these texts refer specially to the first 
act of the sanctifying work, but without excluding the remainder. In the third, we 
have the progressive transformation of the believer into the image of Christ attributed 
virtually to the Spirit. “ But we all, with unveiled face, beholding in a mirror the 
glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the Lord , 
the Spirit .” That is to say, the transformation is such an one as might be expected 
from the working of the Spirit of Christ. 

R. a. Regeneration, Inspiration, etc. are ascribed to the Holy 
Spirit; and as the work of sanctification belongs to the same 
sphere of action with these, analogy would lead us to refer it to 
the same agent. 

R. b. In the economy of our salvation, the office-work of the 
Holy Spirit seems to embrace whatever is done within the human 
soul by special divine agency. 

§ hi. With the Use of what Means is Sanctification effected? 

It will be impossible for us to specify all the means employed in 
this work; but the following certainly deserve examination : — 

a. Providential Piscipline. b. Christian Action, c. Relig¬ 
ious Truth, d. The Lord's Pay. 

a. Providential Piscipline. 

We do not now refer to providential discipline as giving one a 
knowledge of God’s will, though it is invaluable in this respect, 
but rather as preparing him to profit by that knowledge. And we 
place this means of sanctification first, because it is used by God 
himself without any human co-operation. 

We infer that divine providence is employed for the sanctifica¬ 
tion of believers — 


174 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


1. From the language of God’s Word. 

a. In respect to adversity. Rom. 5 : 3, sq.; 1 Cor. 11: 32; Heb. 
12 : 6-11; 2 Cor. 4 : 17. 

b. In respect to prosperity. Rom. 2:4; Ps. 145 : 7. 

c. In respect to all events. Rom. 8: 28 ; 2 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 5: 
20 ; 1 Cor. 3 : 21, 22. 

2. From personal experience and observation. Such is the con¬ 
nection of soul and body in us, e. g. that the latter often solicits 
the former to sin; and that this solicitation may be reduced in 
power by the action of disease. 

A Christian is sometimes made to experience want and weakness 
for the very purpose of preparing him to receive the truth with 
humility, or to trust in Christ as a little child. So also prosperity 
may fill his heart with gratitude to God, and give him the means 
of greater usefulness; and then it is granted to him for the sake 
of these important ends. Of such facts almost every Christian 
may be assured by what he has felt or seen. 

b. Christian Action. 

Under this head we shall treat — 

i. Of Secret Worship. 

ii. Of Social Worship. 

hi. Of Observing the Ordinances. 

iv. Of Labor for the Good of others. 

i. Of Secret Worship. 

R. a. By religious worship, in general, we mean the homage of 
the human soul paid to God in view of his attributes and pre¬ 
rogatives. 

R. b. This homage may be directly expressed in praise, adora¬ 
tion, etc. and then it involves a corresponding acknowledgment of 
the worshipper’s dependence and perhaps guilt. 

R. c. On the other hand, the worshipper’s acknowledgment of 
his own dependence, guilt, etc. may be directly expressed , while 
his homage to the divine attributes and prerogatives is only im¬ 
plied. 

R. d. We shall limit our examination of religious worship to the 
Nature , the Duty , and the Efficacy of Prayer. 

i. The Nature of Prayer. 

Prayer is commonly said to include four elements — 

1. Adoration, or homage to God in view of his nature , the 


S0TERI0L0GY. 


175 


aggregate of his perfections, sometimes expressed by the word 
holiness. 

2. Thanksgiving , or homage to God in viqw of his beneficence. 

3. Confession of sm, or homage to God in view of his righte¬ 
ousness. 

4. Petition for favors, or homage to God in view of his fidelity 
and grace. 

R. a. Prayer should always be offered by us, either to Christ 
himself or to God in the name of Christ. This is evident — 

1. From the instruction which Christ gave to his apostles. John 
14: 13; 15: 16; 16: 23, 24. 

2. From the language and example of his apostles. Acts 1: 24; 
2: 21; 7 : 59; 9 : 14, 21; 22: 16; 1 Cor. 1 : 2. 

3. From his relation to believers. Only for his sake, or in con¬ 
sideration of his work, do they receive divine grace. It follows 
of course that the “ Lord’s Prayer ” was not designed to be a per¬ 
manent form , nor even a complete model , of prayer for the use of 
Christians. 

R. b. Prayer should always be submissive , not dictatorial. We 
should ask God to bestow particular blessings, “ if it be agreeable 
to his own will.” This submission is not inconsistent with strong 
faith; nay, it is the fruit of strong faith; for faith leans upon 
Christ; trusts his wisdom, goodness, promises; believes he will an¬ 
swer prayer, and even specific requests, because he inspires true 
prayer, and has promised to hear it. No prayer is genuine and ac¬ 
ceptable to God unless it be offered in faith, and no dictatorial 
prayer is offered in faith. 

R. c. Prayer should be very frequently vocal. There are feel¬ 
ings that cannot be fully expressed in language; there are times 
when silent desires are most appropriate; but, when it is practi¬ 
cable, we think that secret prayer should be vocal; for the utter¬ 
ance of our desires with the voice (1) reacts upon the heart to 
strengthen those desires, and (2) prevents the intrusion of foreign 
thoughts. We do not, however, mean to affirm that secret prayer 
will be rendered more earnest and effectual by the use of the voice, 
when there is felt to be any danger of being overheard by others. 
For this feeling might interfere very injuriously with such 
prayer. 

ii. The Duty of Prayer. 

Nearly all theists concede that prayer is a religious duty, in so 


176 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


far as it consists of adoration, thanksgiving, and confession. They 
may not in all cases hold to any vocal or social act of prayer, but 
they freely grant the' propriety of the spiritual service. Many pro¬ 
fessed theists, however, call in question the propriety of our asking 
God to perform any particular act or grant any special blessing. 
Such a petition they deem to be useless if not disrespectful to God. 
It is proper for us, therefore, to look at this point more carefully, 
and weigh the reasons which influence us to make known our re¬ 
quests to God. We hold that prayer as petition is a Christian 
duty — 

1. Because it is commanded in the Word of God. Jer. 29: 7; 
Matt. 5 : 44; 6 : 6; 9 : 38; 26: 41; Luke 18: 1, sq.; 1 Thess. 5 : 
17 ; James 1:5; 5:16; 1 Pet. 4: 7. 

2. Because it is encouraged by the Word of God. Jer. 29 : 12, 
13; Ez. 36: 37; Matt. 7: 7, 11; 18:19; 21: 22; Luke 11: 13; 
(c/. 1 Sam. 12: 23.) 

3. Because it is suitable in itself. That a child ask favors of a 
parent is natural and appropriate. 

4. Because it is spontaneous. For a Christian to pray is as much 
a matter of course as for him to believe or love. 

hi. The Efficacy of Prayer. 

That prayer contributes to the spiritual growth of the Christian 
is evident — 

1. From the fact that it is ansicered; since no true Christian 
neglects to pray for his own sanctification. By saying that prayer 
is answered, we affirm that God bestows blessings at the request 
of his children, which he would not otherwise have bestowed. In 
proof of this statement we may appeal — 

a. To the direct testimony of God’s Word. Matt. 7 : 7, sq.; 18 : 
19 ; 21: 22 ; Luke 11: 13 ; James 1: 5, sq.; 4 : 2, 3 ; 5 : 16, sq.; 
1 John 5: 14, sq.; Ex. 32: 7, sq. 

b. To the indirect testimony of God’s Word. And here we 
might bring up again all the passages which were cited above to 
prove the duty of prayer. For it is absurd to suppose that God 
commands and encourages a vain service. 

c. To the moral nature wffiich God* has given us ; a nature which 
in its best condition inclines to expect such answers. 

2. From the nature of the service. For it is manifestly one of 
the best exercises of the Christian disposition, — of trust, of love, 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


177 


of humility, of holy desire, — and according to a general law of 
our nature, every power is strengthened by suitable exercise. But 
if the moral disposition is improved by the simple exercise of true 
prayer, then will spiritual discernment, which depends on the state 
of the heart, be also improved, and religious truth be more clearly 
apprehended, and the moral disposition be thereby still further 
quickened and purified. Thus, too, is the Christian qualified to 
profit by a higher kind or degree of spiritual discipline. For God, 
in bestowing his gifts or sending his afflictions, must have regard 
to the religious state of the recipient, as well as to the requests 
which he makes. 

R. a. No philosophical objections can be made to this doctrine 
of prayer which cannot be made to the doctrine of divine provi¬ 
dence in general. None indeed can be made which are not athe¬ 
istic in their tendency. 

R. b. We cannot do less than heartily recommend for careful 
study the treatise of Prof. Phelps on prayer, entitled The Still 
Hour. It is full of excellent thoughts. 

ii. Social Worship. 

By this we mean all worship in connection with others,— 
whether in the family , in the social circle , or in the larger congre¬ 
gation. 

We shall content ourselves with speaking very briefly on the 
Duty and the Benefits of Social Worship. And 

1. The Duty of Social Worship is evident — 

a. From its being enjoined in the Word of God. Heb. 10: 25 ; 
Col. 3 : 16. 

b. From its being encouraged in the Word of God. Matt. 18: 
19, 20. 

c. From its being practised by apostolic men. Acts 1: 13, sq.; 
2: 1, etc. 

d. From its being implied in the organization of church and 
family. 

2. The Benefits of Social Worship. 

This form of worship contributes to growth in grace — 

a. By enkindling higher devotion in the heart. We are beings 
of sympathy, easily affected by the feelings of those around us. 
Hence, religious emotion is increased by contact with religious 
emotion. So, too, the truths of the Bible are set in new lights by 
23 


L78 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


the experience and reflection of different minds; the old is made 
new, and gains new power over the heart. 

b. By bringing into livelier exercise brotherly love. The sight of 
the eye, it is said, affects the heart. And certainly it is impossible 
for us to feel a very strong attachment to those who are almost 
strangers to us. To love our fellow-Christians as such we must 
know their Christian feelings. 

c. By securing a special blessing from God. “If two of you 
shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it 
it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven;” 
“ Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there 
am I in the midst of them.” Matt. 18: 19, 20. 

hi. Of observing the Christian Ordinances. 

In so far as these are emblematical and instructive, it will be 
more natural to consider them hereafter; we shall therefore 
merely refer to the act of observing them as in itself when rightly 
performed, conducive to sanctification, reserving the fuller discus¬ 
sion of them for another place. 

That observing the ordinances of Christianity is eminently useful 
in strengthening right purposes and affections, is due — 

1. To the special solemnity connected with their observance. 
No act perhaps in a Christian’s life is adapted to fill his mind with 
greater awe and thankfulness than that of being buried with 
Christ in baptism. It is an act never to be repeated ; a deliberate, 
prayerful, irreversible declaration of his faith in Christ, and allegi¬ 
ance to him. By its very solitariness it lays hold of his imagina¬ 
tion, and repeats its lesson again and again to the close of life. 
Next to this act in solemnity is that of communing with Christ 
and his church at the Lord’s table. 

2. To the special self-denial connecj^d with the observance of 
baptism. It will doubtless be admitted that the offence of the 
cross has not ceased ; and if it attaches to any one act of obedience 
more than to others, that act is baptism. Perhaps this was in¬ 
tended by the Saviour, and will be true till the end of time. Cer¬ 
tainly it increases the power of this act as a means of sanctifi¬ 
cation. 

§ iy. Of Labor for the Good of others. 

It is not easy to overestimate the spiritual benefit attending 
Christian effort for the salvation of men. For such effort brings 
into vigorous exercise every Christian virtue, and, by preoccupying 


S0TERI0L0GY. 


179 


the soul, diminishes the activity of evil propensities. A strictly 
monastic life must therefore, as a general rule, be very prejudicial 
to growth in grace. 

These statements might be supported by an appeal, (a) to the 
Word of God, ( b ) to the nature of true religion, (c) to the consti¬ 
tution of the human soul, and (d) to the history of the church. 

But as they are not likely to be seriously called in question, we 
shall not attempt to collect the evidence from these different 
sources. 

R. We have called Christian action a means , not a source , of sanc¬ 
tification, because in the final analysis we think all moral good will 
be found to spring from God, and because the Holy Spirit employs 
the action of man in subordination to his own will, and indeed 
gives to in an his disposition to act. Hence the language of Augus¬ 
tine may be justified : “Dona sua coronat Deus , non merita tua ,” 
eternal life is a recompense for merits, but these merits are them¬ 
selves gifts of grace, and so, too, the words of his prayer: “Da 
quod jubes, et jube quod vis” —words which were not meant by 
him to be an excuse for sin, nor a protest against moral responsi¬ 
bility, but rather a confession of deep depravity, with an acknowl¬ 
edgment that his salvation, from first to last, was entirely of 
grace. Perhaps this view was too exclusively urged by Augus¬ 
tine, yet it was by no means inconsistent with importunate prayer 
and incessant labor on his part. In other words, its practical 
bearing was not, as Pelagians and Arminians declare it must be, 
unfavorable to personal zeal and effort. 

We come now to the principal means employed by the Holy 
Spirit in sanctifying believers, viz: — 

c. Religious Truth. 

It has already been observed that every Christian emotion, de¬ 
sire, purpose, and action is called into being by the perception of 
truth. Holy living is absolutely dependent on true knowledge; 
right moral feelings and actions must by the very constitution of 
the soul be called forth, if at all, by the presence of suitable 
thoughts in the mind. A little reflection will satisfy every man of 
this. Hence truth, , as a means of sanctification, logically precedes 
Christian action; and the topics of this section in logical order 
would be Providential Discipline, Religious Truth, Christian 
Action, The Lord’s Day. But we have mentioned our reason for a 
different order; perhaps, however, it is hardly sufficient. 


180 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


As to the relation of truth as a means of sanctification to the 
Holy Spirit as its living author, it will be enough to say, at the 
outset, that while the heart is made susceptible by the immediate 
action of the Spirit, each particular truth serves to elicit and in¬ 
vigorate those affections, desires, or volitions, which accord with 
its nature. 

Without intending to undervalue the religious truth which is 
revealed to us by the works of nature and of Providence, we shall 
limit our examination to that which is taught by the sacred 
oracles, and in particular by the emblematical rites of Christianity. 
For, however important the teaching of natural religion may be to 
those who have not the Bible, it adds very little to what is con¬ 
tained in this book, and consequently is of less importance to us, 
especially in our present course of study. Where something must 
of necessity be omitted, we may of course with more propriety 
omit that which is to us of secondary importance than that 
which is of primary. 

To prove that divine truth is employed in sanctifying believers, 
we refer — 

1. To the direct testimony of God’s Word. John 14: 17 ; 15 : 
26; 16: 13; 17: 17; 8: 32; 1 Peter 2: 2; Heb. 5 : 12-14; 2 
Tim. 3 : 16, 17. 

Notes. John 17: 17. Divine truth is here represented as the element , or atmosphere, 
in which the sanctification is to be wrought by God. The word “ sanctify ” appears to 
comprehend in this place both the idea of consecration to a holy service, — that of 
laboring in word and doctrine, and the idea of moral preparation for that work. 

2. To the implied testimony of God’s Word. Eph. 1:8; 4:11, 
12; 1 Cor. 14: 3, 4, 5. 

3. To the nature of the human soul. For it is manifest that the 
Word of God contains just those moral and religious truths which 
tend to beget faith, love, and every right moral affection. 

As the ordinances of Christianity, namely, Baptism and the 
Lord’s Supper , appear to have their chief value in the truths which 
they represent, we may as well speak of them at length in this 
connection. And 


a. Baptism. 

As to which we shall inquire — 
i. What is the external rite ? 
ii.. What is the significance of it ? 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


181 


hi. Who are the proper subjects of it ? 

iy. Was John’s baptism virtually Christ’s baptism? 

v. What are the spiritual benefits of baptism ? 

i. What is the external rite f 

We answer, “Immersion of the candidate in water into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 

Of this definition the term Immersion may be justified — 

1. By the uniform meaning of the word {lamltco in other con¬ 
nections. See Rob. Lex. s. v. Bap. Tracts, p. 91, sq. Stuart on 
Bap. Bib. Repos, in. and Prof. Ripley’s Reply. 

2. By circumstances attending the administration of baptism in 
the apostolic age. Mark 1:9; John 8 : 23; Acts 8 : 38, 39. 

3. By references to the import of baptism which suppose immer¬ 
sion to be the external rite. Rom. 6 : 3-5 ; Col. 2:12. 

4. By the practice of the early church. 

R. a. Dr. Robinson urges the following reasons for giving a 
different meaning in some cases to (turnip in the Hew Testament, 
viz: — 

a. It is used to signify ablution or affusion in Luke 11 : 38, as 
appears by comparing Mark 7 : 2-4, 8, with 2 Kings 3 : 11. But in 
this view he differs from the ablest critics of Germany, e. g. De 
Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, and others. In fact, the references of 
Dr. R. prove nothing, because the circumstances are not described 
as similar. Couches may have been plunged in water to cleanse 
them, as well as smaller articles. 

b. Acts 2: 41, and 4: 4, show that 8,000 were baptized in Jeru¬ 
salem ; but it is not probable there was water in that city to im¬ 
merse so many. To this we reply— 1. That there were pools in 
and around the city sufficient to immerse almost any number of 
persons at the same time. 2. That a pool of water large enough 
for the immersion of one might serve for the immersion of 5,000 in 
succession. 3. That it is by no means certain 3,000 were baptized 
on the day of Pentecost. 4. That 5,000, instead of 8,000, was 
probably the number of believers in Jerusalem at the time referred 
to in Acts 4: 4. 

Note. For proof of our first reply, see “ Baptismal Tracts,” Barclay’s “ City of the 
Great King,” and Robinson’s Palestine, vol. i. p. 323, sq. For proof of our third 
reply, see Hackett, De Wette, Meyer, and others, on Acts 4: 4. 

As to the possibility of baptizing 3,000 in a day, there can be no doubt. The apos¬ 
tles and their assistants could easily have done this. Stanley, in his work on the 


182 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Epistles to the Corinthians, supposes that the candidates, when they were numerous, 
immersed themselves. 

c. In the earliest Latin versions SanniQw was transferred, not 
translated, e. g. by immergo. Reply: This can be readily ac¬ 
counted for without supposing any difference of meaning between 
(3u7itI'£(x) and immergo. For the Greek language was very generally 
understood throughout the Roman Empire during the first three 
centuries of the Christian Era, and the word ^anrl^oj, first used to 
describe the act of Christian baptism, would naturally become a 
well-known and sacred term. It would be retained for the same 
reason that the word Eucharist was retained. 

d. Baptismal fonts of an early date were too small for the im¬ 
mersion of adults. To this we reply — 1. By denying the fact 
that they are too small. Prof. Hackett visited those described by 
Dr. Robinson, and affirms that they were large enough for the 
baptism of adults. 2. By denying that we can fix the date of their 
construction. Infant baptism may have become general when 
they were made. 

R. b. In a work on Christian Doctrine, written probably while 
he was yet a young man, Milton thus defines Christian Baptism : 
“Under the gospel, the first of the sacraments, commonly so 
called, is baptism, icherein the bodies of believers, who engage them¬ 
selves to pureness of life, are immersed in running water, — in 
profluentem aquam, — to signify their regeneration by the Holy 
Spirit, and their union with Christ in his death, burial, and resur- 
rection .” n. p. 114. With this definition may be compared his 
language in okV age, Paradise Lost, xii. 441: — 

“ Them who shall believe 
Baptizing in the profluent stream , the sign 
Of washing them from guilt of sin to life, 

Pure and in mind prepared, if so befall, 

For death like that which the Redeemer died.” 

Says Mozley, in his work on Baptismal Regeneration, “ The type 
contained in the external rite has, by the custom of sprinkling, 
been lost altogether to the rite, and even in language it has become 
a vague generality, rather than the representation of a change sup¬ 
posed to take place in the baptized person himself,” p. 36, 37. 

Again, the clause, “ into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost,” signifies that the candidate, by submitting 
to this rite, enters into a very intimate relation to the Trinity, be- 


SOTEKIOLOGY. 


183 


coming openly and formally a servant of the Father, and the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost. 

R. An abbreviated formula, mentioning only the name of Christ, 
may have been sometimes used by the apostles, Acts 2:38; 8 : 16; 
19 : 5 ; but there is no certain evidence of this. From the time of 
Justin Martyr (138 or 139), we find that the formula given by 
Christ was carefully observed, and we are on the whole persuaded 
it was by the apostles themselves. The formula was probably 
somewhat defined before the death of Christ. 

ii. What is the Significance of Baptism ? 

To this we reply — 

1. That by virtue of the symbolical act — 

a. It declares the regeneration of the subject, — his death to sin 
and birth to holiness. See Rom. 6:4; Col. 2 : 12. 

b. It commemorates the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. 
Mark 10 : 38, 39; Luke 12: 50 ; Rom. 6:3; Col. 2 : 12. 

2. That by virtue of the element water , it represents the purify¬ 
ing nature of this regeneration. Acts 22 : 16. 

R. a. Perhaps these two ideas may be united in a third, viz: 
That baptism represents union with Christ, the fellowship of its 
subject as one who has experienced an inward death and resurrec¬ 
tion with a dying and risen Saviour. 

R. b. The validity of this ordinance does not depend on the 
office nor the piety of the administrator. It is wholly emblem¬ 
atical of the candidate’s experience, and if it is submitted to with 
a good conscience on his part, it expresses the truth and is accept¬ 
able to Christ. 

hi. Who are the Proper Subjects of Baptism ? 

To this we reply — Believers in Christ , or those who give credi¬ 
ble evidence of faith in Christ. 

This may be inferred — 

1. From the commission given by Jesus. Matt. 28: 19; Mark 
16: 16. 

2. From the practice of the apostles and their contemporaries. 
Acts 2: 38, 41; 8 : 12, 13 ; 9: 18 ; 10:44, 47; 16: 14, 15, 31,33; 
18:8. 

3. From apostolic language concerning it. Rom. 6:3, 4; Gal. 
3: 27; 1 Pet. 3: 21. 

4. From the usage of the church for upwards of two centuries. 
See Christian Review , vol. xvi. Dr. Ripley, and voL xix. Dr. Chase. 


184 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


R. Those which add to “ believers in Christ ” “ their children ,” 
as proper subjects of baptism, rely upon such statements as follow 
to justify their view : — 

a. Baptism under the new covenant takes the place of circum¬ 
cision under the old, and should therefore be administered to 
infants. 

Reply. Baptism and circumcision are doubtless analogous rites, 
inasmuch as they are initiatory and symbolical of an inward 
change. But it is evident that these two rites are not coextensive 
in their application : — 

1. Because the subjects of each rite are carefully described and 
are not the same. See Gen. 17: 10, sq. / Mark 16: 16 ; Acts 
8 : 12 . 

2. Because the chief condition of membership in the New Cov¬ 
enant is entirely different from that in the old. See Gen. 17 : 10, 
sq.; Heb. 8: 7, sq.; (cf. Jer. 31: 31, sq.) 

3. Because circumcision was practised by the Jewish Christians, 
along with baptism, for a considerable period. See Acts 16: 3 ; 
11:3, sq. ; Gal. 2: 12, sq. 

4. Because in opposing the circumcision of Gentile Christians 
Paul never hints that baptism takes the place of circumcision. 
Says Neander, “ The dispute carried on with the Judaizing party 
on the necessity of circumcision, would easily have given an op¬ 
portunity of introducing this substitute into the controversy, if it 
had really existed. The evidence arising from silence on this topic, 
has therefore the greater weight.” See Rev. J. T. Smith, on “ The 
Covenant of Circumcision.” 

b. Entire households were baptized by the apostles; and it is 
reasonable to presume that there were infants in some of these 
households. Acts 16: 15, 33, 34; 18: 8; 1 Cor. 1: 16; (cf. 1 Cor. 
16: 15, 17.) 

Reply. It will be seen by a careful examination that there is no 
probability that any of the members of these households were either 
infants or unbelievers. The argument from household to infant 
baptism has been relinquished by the best modern interpreters; it 
is used however by a few scholars, and by most pedobaptists who 
are not scholars. 

c. Christ blessed little children, and said “ of such is the kingdom 
of heaven; ” but if infants are saved by Christ, they are of course 
to be baptized. Mark 10: 13-16; Luke 18: 15-17; Matt. 19: 
13-15. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


185 


Reply, Had Christ or his disciples baptized the little children, 
this act would have had some bearing on the question at issue. 
Jeremy Taylor very justly remarks, that to infer infant baptism 
from Christ’s blessing little children, “ proves nothing so much as 
that there is want of better argument; for the conclusion would 
with greater probability be derived thus : Christ blessed little chil¬ 
dren and so dismissed them, but baptized them not, therefore in¬ 
fants are not to be baptized.” See, on the other hand, Alford’s 
surprising note on Mark 10: 14. 

d. Unbelieving children are said to be “holy ” by virtue of their 
parents’ faith. 1 Cor. 7 : 14. 

Reply. Paul’s argument seems to us a proof that children were 
not then baptized in their infancy. For he argues that it is not 
contaminating for a Christian to live with an unbelieving com¬ 
panion, because it is not contaminating for him to live with his 
children. But there could surely be no force in this to one whose 
children had been all consecrated to God, and brought into cove¬ 
nant with him in infancy. The heathen companion and the bap¬ 
tized children would not stand on the same level, would not be in 
the same fold, and therefore the propriety of associating with the 
latter would not prove the propriety of doing this with the former. 
This view of the passage is taken by De Wette, Meyer, Neander, 
Riickert, Muller, ii. p. 868. Says De Wette, “For otherwise , — if 
this were not true, — are* (cf. 5 : 10) your children impure ,—be¬ 
cause not baptized, not properly Christians, — but now are they 
holy ,— i )yiaafieva m n Says Meyer, “ Had pedobaptism been at that 
time in use, Paul could not have drawn this inference, because 
the dyidnjg of the Christian children would then have had another 
ground.” Says Neander, “This mode of connection [with the 
church] is rather evidence against the existence of infant baptism. 
The apostle is here treating of the sanctifying influence of the com¬ 
munion between parents and children, by which the children of 
Christian parents would be distinguished from the children of those 
who were not Christian, and in virtue of which they might in a 
certain sense be termed a/m, in contrast with the But 

if infant baptism had been then in existence, the epithet a/m, ap¬ 
plied to Christian children, would have been deduced only from 
this sacred rite by which they had been incorporated with the 
Christian church.” Says Riickert, “ The correctness of the argu¬ 
ment, so soon as the statement respecting children is admitted, is 


24 


186 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


obvious, and De Wette and Neander have rightly deemed the pas¬ 
sage a proof that in Paul’s time no pedobaptism was practised.” 
And Prof. Hackett remarks, “ The kindred expression is sanctified 
used in connection with the unbelieving consort, at¬ 
tributes as much holiness, and holiness of the same kind, to that 
consort, as is attributed [by aym] to the children of the Corin¬ 
thian Christians. The holiness, in both cases, is freedom from such 

a state as would render family intercourse improper.The 

reasoning of the apostle, all must perceive, proceeds on the assump¬ 
tion that the children referred to were not yet numbered among 
the believers, as all persons were who had been baptized.” Thus 
we have positive evidence that infant baptism was unknown to the 
Corinthians. 

e. Had not the infant children of Jewish Christians been admit¬ 
ted to baptism, and thus treated as well as they were under the 
old covenant, the Jews would certainly have resisted Christianity 
on this account; but we read of no such resistance; hence their 
infant seed must have been admitted to baptism. 

Reply. The Jews who believed in Christ during the apostolic 
period, continued for the most part to practise circumcision, and 
regarded Christianity, we doubt not, as a separate, additional bless¬ 
ing for those who believed in Christ. The new did not displace 
the old; the rights of the new did not supersede the rights of 
the old; hence there could be no reason why Jews, more than 
others, should insist upon infant baptism. They were too much 
accustomed to associate particular rites with particular conditions, 
to be surprised that repentance and faith were made the conditions 
of baptism. Says Neander, “Among the Jewish Christians, cir¬ 
cumcision was held as a seal of the covenant, and hence they had 
so much the less occasion to make use of another dedication of 
their children.” 

fi. The early church admitted the children of believers to bap¬ 
tism ; hence it must have been an apostolic practice likewise. 

Reply. If reference be had to the first two centuries after 
Christ, the statement is incorrect; if to a later period, it has no 
force. 

iv. Was John's Baptism virtually Christian Baptism? 

In favor of an affirmative reply, it may be said — 

1. That the ritual act in both cases represented the same inward 



SOTERIOLOGY. 


187 


change. Matt. 3 : 6, sq. ; Mark 1: 4, sq.; Luke 3 : 3, sq ., 7, 10; 
20 : 3, sq.; (cf. the Senior Edwards, i. p. 163.) 

2. That faith in the Messiah was required in both cases. Matt. 
3 : 11, sq.; Mark 1: 7, sq.; Luke 3 : 15, sq.; John 1: 27, sq.; Acts 
19: 4. 

3. That baptism was not repeated when the followers of John 
became disciples of Christ. Acts 19: 1 sq. records the only- 
known exception. 

4. That the apostles themselves were, it is probable, only bap¬ 
tized with John’s baptism. So also Christ. (Cf. Turretin, hi. 
Quaestio xvi. p. 340, sq.) 

In favor of a negative reply, it has been said — 

1. That John belonged to the old dispensation. Matt. 11: 
11, sq. 

But this may be doubted. His message related to the new dis¬ 
pensation ; his office work was to herald the Head of the new. Cf. 
Luke 16: 16. 

2. That the baptismal formula was different in the two cases. 

Doubtless it was; yet not essentially. There is no record of 

the precise words used by John in administering the rite; but if 
they were an epitome of his preaching, they must have implied 
allegiance to Christ. And this alone is referred to in certain pas¬ 
sages of the Acts. E. g. 2: 38 ; 8 : 16 ; 19:5. 

3. That baptism was sometimes repeated when the followers of 
John embraced Christianity. A single instance of the sort is re¬ 
corded, but there were special reasons for rebaptism in that instance* 
Acts 19 : 1, sq. 

v. What are the Spiritual Benefits of Baptism f 

Bearing in mind the import of Christian baptism, we conclude 
that submitting to this rite and cherishing the remembrance of it 
must tend to deepen in the believer — 

1. His sense of union with Christ. 

2. Trust in the Saviour. 

3. Love to the Saviour. 

4. Desire to be holy. 

R. We have said “ cherishing the remembrance of it,” because 
the vivid recollection of one’s baptism is almost as impressive to a 
thoughtful mind as a repetition of the act would be, were there 
any authority for such repetition. 


188 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


We come next to the Lord's Supper: and shall consider — 

i. The External Rite. 

ii. The Import of this Rite. 

hi. The proper Communicants. 

iv. The Blessings given with it. 

i. The External Rite. 

The institution of this rite by our Saviour has been described by 
four of the sacred writers; namely, Matthew (26: 26-29), Mark 
(14: 22-25), Luke (22:19,20), and Paul (1 Cor. 11: 23-25). 
From these several accounts we learn the following facts in respect 
to the elements employed in this rite and the way in which they 
were used. 

1. The elements were bread and wine. The bread was doubt¬ 
less unleavened; yet this peculiarity is nowhere referred to by the 
sacred writers, or by Christ himself, and hence is not to be looked 
upon as significant. The wine is spoken of by Christ as “this 
fruit of the vine ” (Matt. 26 : 29; Mark 14 : 25), and it seems very 
desirable for us to make use of the same at the present day. 

2. The ritual use of these elements embraced (a) the euchar- 
istic prayers, ( b ) the breaking of the bread and pouring out of the 
wine, by the presiding officer, and ( c) the eating and drinking of 
the respective elements by all the communicants. 

R. a. We do not suppose that the singing or clianting of 
Christ and his disciples, just before they went out into the Mount 
of Olives, was intended to be a part of the new ordinance. For it 
is mentioned by neither Luke nor Paul in describing the institu¬ 
tion of the Lord’s Supper; and we do not find it anywhere en¬ 
joined as a part of this ordinance. The words sung by Christ 
and his disciples were probably the second part of the great Hal- 
lel; viz. Psalms 115-118; which the Jews were in the habit of 
singing after they had eaten the paschal lamb. It is however emi¬ 
nently proper to praise the Lord in song after partaking of the 
emblems of his death. 

R. b. It has been conjectured that in the age of the apostles the 
eucharistic prayers were offered by the whole body of the church 
in concert. But there is no good reason for this conjecture. The 
language of Paul, 1 Cor. 10: 16, would be perfectly natural if all 
the members of the church were supposed to join in the prayers 
offered by the pastor; a fact which they were accustomed to sig¬ 
nify by saying “ Amen ” at the close. 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


189 


ii. The Import of the Lord's Supper. 

Since the elements represent the body and blood of the dying 
Saviour, the reception of them — 

1. Symbolizes the reception by faith of Christ crucified as the 
source of spiritual and eternal life, (1 Cor. 10 : 16 ; cf John 6 : 51, 
53, 54.) This implies of course a belief in the doctrine of the 
atonement. To believe in Christ crucified as the source of life, is 
to believe in the atonement as that source. It implies also union 
with the spiritual body of Christ by virtue of receiving him. This 
is a subordinate but important fact represented by the joint par¬ 
taking of the Supper. It is the act of a family. 1 Cor. 10 : 
15-21. 

2. Commemorates the atoning death of Christ, or Christ as the 
Lamb of God offering himself in sacrifice for sin. 1 Cor. 11: 24- 
26; 5:7. This office of the Lord’s Supper, it will be noticed, was 
very emphatically declared by the Saviour. Indeed, the commem¬ 
orative import of this rite makes its symbolical meaning doubly 
impressive. That the emblems are also memorials , bringing the 
scenes of Calvary distinctly before the mind, adds greatly to their 
power. 

3. Typifies the marriage supper of the Lamb, or, in other words, 
the future blessedness of believers in the presence of Christ. Matt. 
26 : 29 ; Mark 14 : 25 ; 1 Cor. 11:26; (cf Matt. 22 : 2, sq.; 25: 
10 ; Rev. 19: 7-9.) 

R. a. It appears from several passages that the Paschal Lamb 
was in some sense a type of Christ. 1 Cor. 5:7; John 19 : 36; 
(cf Ex. 12 : 46 ; and Rum. 9 : 12.) But if the Paschal Lamb bore 
some resemblance to Christ, the Paschal Supper must naturally 
have borne some resemblance to the Lord’s Supper. The former 
commemorated the deliverance of the natural Israel from temporal 
ruin, the latter commemorates the deliverance of spiritual Israel 
from eternal ruin. As the Jewish people typified the true Israel, 
so likewise did many Jewish rites foreshadow Christian realities. 
By pressing the analogy too far, Romanists find the doctrine of the 
real presence, and Stoddardeans, the right of unconverted persons 
to partake of the Lord’s Supper. 

R. b. Breaking the bread and pouring out the wine are import¬ 
ant parts of the ordinance; for they increase its commemorative 
power by bringing the death of Christ more vividly to mind. This 
is lost by the Catholic form. 


190 


CHK1STIAN THEOLOGY. 


R. c. The papal custom of withholding the cup from laymen is 
not authorized by the Word of God. Acts 2 : 42 ; 20 : 7, 11; 1 
Cor. 10 : 16, 17, 21; 11: 27-29. 

R. d. The papal doctrines of transubstantiation and sacrifice of 
the mass are unscriptural. See Heb. 7 : 27; 9 : 26, 28 ; 10: 10; (cf 
Mai. 1:11;) for conclusive proof of this remark. 

For the papal doctrine, see “ Canones et Decreta Concilii Triden- 
tini,” p. 66, i. “ Si quis negaverit, in sanctissimae eucharistiae Sac¬ 
ramento contineri vere, realiter et substantialiter corpus et sangui- 
nem una cum anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, ac 
proinde totum Christum; sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo, ut in 
signo vel figura aut virtute: anathema sit.” Yet Christ says ex¬ 
pressly of one of the elements which he had consecrated, “ I will 
not drink again of this fruit of the vine” etc. 

R. e. The Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation is exceedingly 
unnatural, and no more scriptural than the papal doctrine. Could 
the disciples have supposed the real body and blood of Christ 
present in the elements, bread and wine, which they received from 
him? It does not seem possible. Yet the Augsburg confession 
says, “De Coena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis Christi 
vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in coena Domini, et impro- 
bant secus docentes,” a. d. 1530. And the Formula of Concord 
says, “ Credimus, quod in coena Domini corpus et sanguis Christi 
vere et substantialiter sint praesentia, et quod una cum pane et vino 
vere distribuantur atque sumantur,” a. d. 1579. 

R./ 1 . The view which regards the elements as merely emblems 
of the body and blood of Christ, rests upon a simple and obvious 
interpretation of Christ’s language. See John 14: 6; 15 : 5; Luke 
12:1; Heb. 10: 20; Philem. 12, and Ex. 12: 11. 

R. g. The New Testament nowhere prescribes when ox how often 
this ordinance is to be observed. It was, however, in all proba¬ 
bility observed more frequently by the apostolic church than it is 
by Christians at the present day. Whether a more frequent ob¬ 
servance of this rite is now desirable, can only be determined by 
careful observation. 

hi. The Proper Communicants. 

For the sake of treating this topic in a practical way, we offer 
the following questions and replies, viz: — 

1. Should any except credible believers in Christ be invited to 
the Lord’s Supper? 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


191 


To this we reply in the negative — 

a. Because no others, we have reason to believe, were invited to 
this ordinance in the apostolic age. See the several notices of 
this ordinance in the New Testament. JE. g. Acts 2 : 42; 1 Cor. 
11: 2, 16, sq. 

b. Because no others can be supposed to eat and drink worthily, 
appreciating the Lord’s body. 1 Cor. 11 : 27-31. 

c. Because no others can honestly say for themselves what is 
said emblematically by partaking the elements. See discussion of 
the preceding topic. What but mockery and blasphemy would be 
the reception of the elements by unbelievers ? Yet Stoddard con¬ 
sidered the Lord’s Supper a converting ordinance. 

2. Should any except baptized believers be invited to the Lord’s 
Supper ? 

Again we reply in the negative — 

a. Because no others seem to have been welcomed to this ordi¬ 
nance in the apostolic age. Acts 2 : 42 ; 1 Cor. 10 : 16, sq.; 11: 
18, etc. 

b. Because no others have made a legitimate profession of their 
allegiance to Christ; for the only way in which this can be done 
is by submitting to the ordinance of baptism. Acts 2: 41, 42 ; (cf. 
v. 47;) 8:12; Bom. 6:3, sq.; 1 Cor. 1:14; 12:12,13; Gal. 3 : 
26-28. 

c. Because the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and baptism 
is prerequisite to church membership. 

The first jwoposition in this argument has been seriously called 
in question; yet we believe it to be true, and offer in its support 
the following remarks : — 

a. The Lord’s Supper was first administered to the small house¬ 
hold of Christ’s disciples, — a united body, the responsible Chris¬ 
tian church of that time. Judas had gone out. 

b. It was next observed by them with the members of the Chris¬ 
tian church at Jerusalem. Acts 2: 41, 42, 46, 47. 

Notes. In verse 41, we have an account of the baptism of about three thousand 
believers, and of their being added to the previous company of the faithful. In verse 
42, we are told that they “ were constantly applying themselves to the teaching of the 
apostles and to the communication of alms, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers; ” 
and this description refers to those, and those only, who had been separated from the 
world and united together as a family of believers. In verse 46, we are told that the 
Christians of Jerusalem not only met in the temple for religious worship, but were 
accustomed to break bread from house to house, or in private houses. They were be¬ 
lievers, baptized and connected with the church unquestionably; but did they observe 


192 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


the Lord’s Supper as a church ordinance ? The words *ar' oTkov suggest a doubt. If 
the Lord’s Supper was observed, not in the temple where all the church would be to¬ 
gether, but in private houses where only a few of its members could unite, is it not prob¬ 
able that this ordinance was designed, like the passover, for the family rather than the 
church? that it was meant to be observed, with little formality, as a social Christian 
rite, whenever a few believers were together at table ? This view is doubtless suggested 
by the verse before us, but we do not think it is established. 1. Because another view 
will satisfy as well the language of the verse. There may have been, and probably 
were, obstacles in the way of observing the Lord’s Supper in the temple, although the 
Christians were suffered with others to meet there for religious worship. There may 
also have been obstacles to their use of the synagogues for a strictly Christian service, 
and there probably were. If unable to celebrate this ordinance in the temple or the 
synagogues, they would be forced to do it, if at all, in private houses. There were 
now twelve apostles in the city to care for the church, and meet with its members, if 
necessary, in various places at the same time. Now if the apostles, yielding to circum¬ 
stances, divided the city into twelve sections, and each of them met the Christians of 
a particular section in the house of some brother to observe the holy supper, the ordi¬ 
nance was not treated as merely a social or family rite, but rather as a church rite; 
and yet the language of our verse might be naturally used in alluding to it. And the 
hypothesis thus made does not, we think, misrepresent the true history of this matter. 
2. Because the church at Jerusalem was now in a formative state. It had not as yet 
the regular officers and usages of a mature Christian church. For a time, under the 
special guidance of the apostles, and the extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit, 
the full organization of the church was held in reserve, the regular methods of church 
action were left to be gradually adopted. The Christian life, so to speak, was not 
brought at once into the channels which were destined to receive its current and bear 
it onward through all time. Yet, even at the outset, we discover no violation of the 
principles which were soon to be distinctly expressed in the regular working of the 
church. Thus, in the passage under examination, we find no evidence that the Lord’s 
Supper was not held to be a church ordinance, and treated substantially as such. 

c. It seems to have been thenceforth, during the apostolic age, 
observed by Christians in a church capacity, and not otherwise. 
Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 10 : 1G, sq. ; 11: 18, sq. 

Notes. In the first of these passages, we have the observance of the Lord’s Sup¬ 
per by a Christian church on the Lord’s Day. For it is admitted by all critics of note 
that airoi:s here represents the disciples of Christ in Troas, and it is morally certain 
that they had for some time been united together as a Christian church, (cf 2 Cor. 
2: 12.) Moreover, a regular meeting of the church maybe inferred from the time 
designated, namely, the first day of the week ; for, as we shall presently see, the Chris¬ 
tians were accustomed to meet on this day for religious worship. 

In the second of these passages (1 Cor. 10: 17), we have the following language: 
“ Because it is one bread (or loaf), we the many are one body; for we are all partakers 
of the one bread.” (Meyer, Hodge;) or, “For we the many are one bread, one body; 
because we all partake of the one bread.” Note, 1. That this was addressed to the 
Corinthian Church; 2. That the apostle represents the whole church as blessing the 
elements; and 3. That he emphasizes the unity of the church as symbolized by the 
one loaf. 

In the third passage (1 Cor. 11: 18), the words iv denote the Corinthian be¬ 

lievers as an assembled company, or more accurately, in church capacity, ( cf 1 Cor. 
14: 19, 23, 24.) Thus: “ When ye come together in church, I hear there are schisms 
among you.” • • • And then verse 20: “When, therefore, ye come together in 


SOTEEIOLOGY. 


193 


the same place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” etc. These two passages seem to 
me conclusive. For they prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Corinthian disciples 
celebrated the Lord’s Supper as a church, or in a church capacity, and that Paul ap¬ 
proved this custom. So far, indeed, was he from censuring them for eating the Lord’s 
Supper in church, that he censures them rather for making it too much like a common 
meal. “Have ye not houses,” he asks, “ for eating and drinking ? or despise ye the 
church of God?” (v. 22.) This language makes it evident that the practice of the 
first church at Jerusalem was but temporary and provisory. To reverse this state¬ 
ment, and say that the history of the earlier practice proves the later to have been 
abnormal, would be little less than absurd; to say that the action of the disciples in 
Jerusalem, for a very brief period after the Pentecost, gives us the true apostolic form 
of church action, and that all subsequent departures from this model were deviations 
from the right way, would be to deny either the inspiration or the authority of the 
apostles. 

In confirmation of the evidence already given, that the Lord’s 
Sapper is properly a church ordinance, we add the following re¬ 
mark : — 

d. It was esteemed a church rite, and observed as such, by 
Christians during the first three centuries. This will not be denied 
by any one who is familiar with the history of that period. Said 
Justin Martyr, in his first apology, written in a. d. 138 or 139 j 
“ This food,” i. e. the bread and wine, “is called among us eti/aQiarict, 
of which no one is allowed to partake who does not believe that 
what we teach is true, and has not been bathed the bath for the 
remission of sins and unto regeneration, and does not live as 
Christ has enjoined.” Here we have three prerequisites laid 
down—(1) Faith, (2) Baptism, (3) An orderly walk. Very good 
doctrine, we think, and quite in harmony with apostolic pre¬ 
cedent. 

The remarks which have now been made are sufficient, we be¬ 
lieve, to justify the position assumed by us that the Lord’s Supper 
is properly a church ordinance. Hence, if baptism is prerequisite 
to union with a Christian church, it must be prerequisite to par¬ 
ticipating in"the Lord’s Supper, a church ordinance. But baptism 
is prerequisite to church membership, as we learn — 

1. From Gal. 3 : 27, and 1 Cor. 12: 13, and indeed from every 
reference to baptism and the church in the Xew Testament. 

2. From the import of baptism and the nature of a Christian 
church. The latter is composed of accredited believers, and the 
former signifies the entrance of its subject on a life of faith. From 
the nature of the case, therefore, it precedes church membership. 

3. From the consent of nearly all Christians from the earliest 
period of the church until now. There is certainly no one point 

25 


194 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


in respect to the Christian ordinances which has been more uni¬ 
formly granted than this; and this agreement of Christians affords 
prima facie evidence that their belief is supported by common 
sense and the Word of God. Christian baptism is therefore pre¬ 
requisite to church membership and to partaking of the holy sup¬ 
per. We have assigned three reasons for holding that none but 
baptized believers should be invited to the Lord’s Supper, and may 
now suggest another, namely : — 

d. Because the import of baptism places it before the Lord’s 
Supper. 

The order in which these two rites should be observed is fixed 
by their meaning, and cannot be reversed without violence to one 
of them, and indeed to both of them, if our last argument is sound. 
Baptism stands at the beginning of a life of Christian discipleship, 
and is never to be repeated; the Lord’s Supper comes in all along 
the progress of that life, whenever the soul desires to be strength¬ 
ened by the presence of its Lord. Baptism symbolizes the act of 
union with Christ by regeneration; the Lord’s Supper symbolizes 
the existence and continuance of that union. Can one be a mem¬ 
ber- of Christ before he is grafted into his body ? or can the sym¬ 
bol of membership precede that of incorporation? Should any 
except those whose “ walk is orderly ” be invited ? 

Our reply to this question must depend on the meaning which 
is given to the words “orderly walk.” In 2 Thes. 3: 6, 7, 11, 
Paul employs the expression, “ walketh disorderly,” and the like, 
to describe an idle, meddlesome way of life, which he pronounces 
contrary to his own teaching and example. From any of their 
brethren who thus live, he directs the Thessalonians to “ with¬ 
draw ; ” “ obviously,” says Alford, “ without allusion as yet to any 
formal excommunication, but implying merely avoidance in inter¬ 
course and fellowship.” It seems to us evident that the language 
of Paul in this passage, (cf v. 14, and 1 Cor. 5: 9, 11, 13,) requires 
the members of a Christian church to withhold their invitation to 
the Lord’s Table from such as thus dishonor his law. And in 
general, we believe that no one who is guilty of any open and 
flagrant violation of his covenant with the church should be in¬ 
vited to this sacred ordinance. 

4. Should the walk of baptized believers in churches defectively 
constituted be esteemed disorderly ? 

Reply. The New Testament is silent on this point, for the 


SOTERIOLOGY. 


195 


apostolic churches were all properly constituted; hence the ques¬ 
tion could not be expected to arise. We are therefore remitted to 
the case itself and the principles already affirmed for a reply. We 
have seen that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance; none, 
therefore, but the members of the church observing this ordinance 
are, strictly speaking, entitled to partake ; and none obviously should 
be invited to occasional communion who cannot be looked upon 
for the time being and in this act as members of the church. We 
ask, then — 

a. Would it be proper for a church rightly constituted to receive 
as permanent members those who were pledged to give their influ¬ 
ence, practically, against one of the Christian ordinances ? 

And reply in the negative. 

b. Would it be wrong for such a church to exclude from its fel¬ 
lowship, after suitable admonition, one who should persevere in 
giving his influence against an ordinance of Christ ? 

And reply in the negative. 

c. Is it proper for such a church to invite to a church ordinance, 
or the privilege of temporary membership, one who would not be 
received to permanent membership, or if received would be ex¬ 
cluded from it ? 

And reply as before, without hesitation, in the negative. In all 
ordinary cases the walk of those who have been baptized and yet 
connect themselves with pedobaptist churches must be pronounced 
disorderly; for they give the weight of their example and influ¬ 
ence to set aside one of the ordinances of Christ. They give “ aid 
and comfort,” character and power, to those who walk disorderly, 
and must therefore be esteemed partakers in their sin. This, we 
say, must be true in all ordinary circumstances; perhaps, in all cir¬ 
cumstances whatsoever; but of this we are not so confident. 

We pass now to consider — 

iv. The Blessings associated with this Ordinance . 

From the import of this rite, a devout and intelligent participa¬ 
tion in it may be expected to increase — 

1. Our trust in Christ for spiritual good. 

2. Our love and gratitude to Christ for his mercy. 

3. Our attachment to the church, its members, and the people of 
God generally. 

4. Our desire to bear fruit to the honor of Christ. 


196 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


We come now to the last specified means of Sanctification, viz: 

d. The Lord's Day. 

And inquire — 

1. Ought Christians to observe this day as one consecrated 
especially to the worship of God ? 

2. What employments should occupy them during this day ? 

3. How is sanctification promoted by a religious observance of 
this day? 

1. Ought Christians to observe this day as one consecrated 
especially to the worship of God? 

We reply in the atfirmative — 

a. Because the spiritual good of men requires them to devote 
one day in seven to the special worship of God. 

This may be inferred — 

1. From the primitive ordination of the Sabbath. Gen. 2 : 2, 3. 

2. From the renewal of this ordination in the fourth command 
of the decalogue. Ex. 20: 9-11. 

3. From the declaration of Christ that the Sabbath was ordained 
for the good of man. Mark 2: 27 ; (cf. Is. 56 : 3, sq.) 

b. Because the apostolic churches appear to have thus observed 
the Lord’s day. Acts 20 : 7; (cf. 21 : 4; 28: 14;) 1 Cor. 16:2; 
Rev. 1: 10; John 20 : 1, 19, 26. 

c. Because the primitive churches appear to have thus observed 
the Lord’s day. See the words of Justin Martyr, Ap. i. c. 67. 

d. Because this seems to be the most suitable day of the week 
for Christian worship. 

R. a. Our view fully recognizes the moral element of the fourth 
commandment. “ Moral precepts,” says Butler, “ are precepts the 
reasons of which we see; positive precepts are precepts the rea¬ 
sons of which we do not see.” Analogy , Part ii. chap. 1. 

R. b. It is also in harmony with the language of Paul, in Rom. 
14 : 5 ; Gal. 4 : 9, 10 ; Col. 2: 16, if we suppose these passages have 
any bearing on the question before us. 

2. What employments should occupy them on this day ? 

Only a general answer can be given, viz: — 

a. Those which are strictly religious or are prerequisite to re¬ 
ligious service. 

b. Those which are necessary for the preservation of life and 
health. 


S0TERI0L0GY. 


197 


c. Those which tend to relieve or prevent severe suffering in man 
or beast. 

It. a. The idea of rest from worldly toil, a negative view, was 
predominant in the Jewish Sabbath. 

It. b. That of spiritual joy and activity is chief and prominent 
in the Lord’s day. 

It. c. It is the duty of all thus to keep the Lord’s day. 

3. How is sanctification, or growth in grace , promoted by a suit¬ 
able observance of this day f 

We reply: — 

By the opportunity which it gives — 

a. For protracted religious study and worship as well in public 
as in private. 

b. For special Christian effort in behalf of others. 

c. For breaking the current of worldly thought and desire, and 
thus gradually eradicating sinful propensities from the heart. 

§ iv. When is Sanctification completed? 

We reply — 

1. It is not completed before the close of this life. 1 John 1: 8, 
10 ; James 3:2; Eccl. 7 : 20; Prov. 20: 9; 1 Kings 8: 46 ; Gal. 
5: 17. 

R. We esteem the first of these passages entirely decisive, were 
all the rest set aside. Kote, that in verse 8, John puts himself in 
the same class with his readers; that he employs a verb in the 
present tense, and thus refers to the present state of believers; 
that in verse 9 he associates himself with those who should seek 
forgiveness of sins, and spiritual purification; and that in verse 10 
he uses the perfect tense — —to describe that which 

has come over from the past into the present. 

Our view of these verses agrees with that of Calvin, Turretin, 
Liicke, De Wette, and Neander. 

Yet this view has been thought irreconcilable with other state¬ 
ments of the same epistle. H. g. S: 9 j 5:18. 

On these we remark — 

a. If they prove that any Christian does not sin, they prove 
that no Christian either does or can sin. 

b. If they affirm all Christians to be sinless, they contradict the 
testimony of John himself, and the whole tenor of Scripture. Of. 
1 John 2:1; 5: 16 ; Gal. 2 : 11. 


198 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


2. It is completed before admission into heaven. For — 

a. Heaven is the special dwelling-place of God; but the holy 
alone are permitted to see him. Matt. 6:9; John 14: 2; Ileb. 
12: 14, 28; Rev. 7: 14; Matt. 5:8; {cf Rev. 21: 27 ; 22: 15 ; Gal. 
5: 21; Eph. 5: 5.) 

b. Heaven is a place of blessedness; but freedom from sin is 
presupposed in this. 2 Cor. 12 : 2, 4; Luke 23: 43 ; Heb. 4:9; 
Rev. 7 : 9, 10, 15-17; Phil. 1: 23. 

3. It is not completed by the discipline of an intermediate state. 
Nothing akin to the doctrine of purgatory is taught in the New 
Testament. On the contrary, we find several passages which rep¬ 
resent the state of the righteous and wicked as fixed from the hour 
of death. Luke 16: 22, sq.; 23 : 43; Phil. 1: 23 ; 2 Cor. 5: 8. 

4. It must then be completed at the hour of death. ( Cf. 2 Cor. 
5 : 1-8 ; 1 Cor. 9 : 27; Rom. 8 : 10; 7 : 24.) 

We have never met with any substantial objection to this view> 
and believe none can be offered. 

§ y. Is Sanctification ever finally arrested before Completion f 

We will first mention some of the reasons which are alleged in 
favor of an affirmative answer. 

1. Analogy favors this reply. But the case is strictly sui gen¬ 
eris , and we do not therefore see how analogy can elucidate it. 

2. Christians are exhorted to persevere. Rev. 2 : 10, 25 ; Heb. 
4 : 1-3, 11. But how can exhortations to perseverance prove that 
any of those addressed will not persevere ? They only show that 
Christ employs rational means in keeping and sanctifying his 
people. 

3. Christians are warned against apostatizing. Heb. 6 : 4-6 ; 
10 : 26-32; 2 Pet. 2 : 20-22 ; 3:17. But warnings against apos¬ 
tasy do not prove that any of those addressed will actually apos¬ 
tatize. They only show that means mfiy be used by Christ to 
prevent such a crime, and that, without their use or some equiva¬ 
lent, apostasy would take place. For the principle involved, cf. 
Acts 27 : 22-25, with verse 31. 

4. Cases of apostasy are supposed in the Sacred Record. Rom. 
14: 15 ; 1 Cor. 8:11; John 15: 1-6 ; Matt. 25 : 1-13 ; Luke 8 : 
11, sq. But cases of sin or apostasy, supposed by way of caution, 
do not prove that any believer in Christ will be left utterly and 
finally to fall. They merely show the natural possibility of such 


SOTEEIOLOGY. 


199 


an event, and recognize the Christian’s moral agency. Some of 
the passages cited above have, we think, no reference to real be¬ 
lievers, as, even in a hypothetical case, falling away from Christ. 
Edwards, i. 125. 

5. Cases of final apostasy are related in the Bible. E. g. those 
of Saul, Judas, Hymenaeus, Alexander, etc. As to Saul,'Ju¬ 
das, et id ornne genus , we find no satisfactory evidence of their 
having ever been regenerated. Their conduct is to be explained 
by the principle stated in 1 John 2:19. 

For the case of Saul, cf. 1 Sam. 10: 9-13; 13: 13, 14; 15: 10, 
sq.; 16: 13, 14. 

For that of Judas, cf John 6: 64, 70; 12: 6; 13: 18, 19; 17: 
12; 18: 9. 

For that of Hymenaeus and Alexander, cf 1 Tim. 1: 20 ; 2 Tim. 
2:17; (see 1 Cor. 5 : 5.) 

Hence, we find no reliable support in the "Word/ of God for the 
belief that sanctification is sometimes finally arrested, and a Chris¬ 
tian suffered to apostatize and perish. 

On the other hand, we have evidence that such will not be the 
case. For we are taught — 

1. That God has chosen from mankind and regenerated by his 
Spirit those who believe in Christ. Rom. 8 : 28-39; 1 Pet. 1: 1- 
5 ; Eph. 1: 4, sq. 

2. That he has thus chosen them for or unto eternal salvation. 
2 Thess. 2 : 13, 14 ; 1 Pet. 1: 3-5. 

3. That he purposes to save them as men who abide in Christ 
unto the end of life. Matt. 24: 13; John 15: 6; Heb. 6: 9, 11, 
12; Rom. 8: 29, sq. “Fides non est vera, quia perseverat, sed 
perseverat, quia vera est; ut perseverantia non sit causa veritatis 
fidei, sed consequens et effectum, quia enim soliditatem habet et 
profundam radicationem in corde. Ideo constans est et perper- 
petuo durat.” Turretin, n. p. 520. 

4. That he has given to Christ, as Mediator, power to keep them 
in himself and sanctify them. John 6: 39, 40; 10: 27-29 ; 17:2. 

5. That Christ will not fail of doing this work. See Phil. 1: 
6, for the principle on which we rest. • 


200 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


PART FIFTH. — ESCHATOLOGY. 

This part of Christian doctrine embraces the following topics: — 
§ I. Natural Death. 

§ II. The Intermediate State. 

§ III. The Resurrection of the Dead. 

§ IY. The Last Judgment. 

§ Y. The Final State of Unbelievers. 

§ YI. The Final State of Believers. 

§ I. Natural Death. 

We do not feel ourselves called upon, in the present course of 
study, to attempt a definition of natural death, or a statement of 
that which it involves. The only question of much interest to us 
is this: Does the personal existence of man come to an end at 
death? This question is generally answered in the affirmative by 
those who believe in the annihilation of the wicked. On the 
other hand, the great body of Christians reply in the negative, — 
correctly, we think. The examination of this point, however, 
must be again deferred ; for it will be considered under § Y. The 
Final State of Unbelievers. For the present it may be assumed 
that death does not destroy the personal existence of man. 

-§ II. The Intermediate State. 

By this is meant the state of men between their death and 
resurrection. 

Only a few passages of God’s Word cast any light upon this 
subject. Hence the following brief statements comprise nearly all 
that is known respecting it. 

1. Unbelievers are in a state of misery. Luke 16: 23. (Of 
Matt. 11: 23 ; 16 : 18 ; Luke 10: 15; Acts 2 : 27, 31; Rev. 1:18; 
6 : 8; 20: 13, 14.) This state or place is called Hades, while their 
final state is called Gehenna, etc. (Of. Matt. 10: 28; 23: 33; 
James 3: 6; Rev. 20: 14.) 

2. Believers are in a state of happiness. Luke 16: 22; 23 : 43; 
2 Cor. 5 : 1-8 ; Phil. 1: 23. This state or place is called Abra- 


ESCHATOLOGY. 


201 


ham’s bosom, paradise, and being present with the Lord; while 
their final state is called heaven or paradise. 

R. The happiness of believers is not so complete in this state 
as it will be afterwards, mainly, we suppose, because the human 
spirit is designed and made for personal union with a body; yet 
partly, also, because the general judgment will add to their 
knowledge. 

Several reasons have been urged against the view we have now 
given, and in support of the opinion that the dead are unconscious 
until the resurrection. E. g. 

1. They are said to be asleep. Matt. 27: 52; John 11: 11, 12; 
Acts 7: 60; 13: 36; 1 Cor.7: 39; 11: 30; 15: 6, 18, 20,51; 1 
Thess. 4: 13, 14, 15 ; 2 Peter 3: 4. 

Reply. In the New Testament this term is applied for the 
most part, if not uniformly, “ to the dead in Christ.” Why so ? 
If it teaches, as Whately insinuates, the unconsciousness of the 
dead, why should it not be applied to Judas as well as to Lazarus? 
•Was Christ unconscious in death? We cannot believe it. The 
term “ sleep ” seems to have been used figuratively of death as a 
description of many of the visible phenomena of the latter; also as 
a milder term, and perhaps as suggestive of the resurrection. 

2. The dead are to be judged, ultimately, according to the deeds 
done in the body. Matt. 10: 32, • sq.\ 11: 20, sq.\ 25: 31, s^.; 2 
Cor. 5: 10. If they are conscious between their death and resur¬ 
rection, their conduct in that period must also be taken into the 
account. 

Reply. This does not follow as a matter of necessity. It is for 
God to say what portion of man’s life shall be probationary and be 
reviewed at the last day. 

3. They are to be judged after the resurrection. Matt. 7 : 22, 
23; 13: 39, s#.; 25: 31, sp\ Acts 17 : 31; 2 Tim. 4: 1. Are 
they conscious between their death and resurrection, their doom 
must be already fixed and known, and the final judgment as 
described in the Word of God must be unnatural if not impos¬ 
sible. 

Reply. We cannot admit the conclusiveness of this objection. 
For — 

a. Though in a state of conscious and assured blessedness the 
righteous may still look upon themselves as having done little for 

26 


202 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


Christ, and may be filled with wonder at his view of their conduct 
in the final day. 

b. Though in a state of conscious misery, the wicked may 
neither give up all hope, nor admit the justice of their treat¬ 
ment. 

c. It is not absurd to suppose that many reasons call for a gen¬ 
eral judgment. But such a judgment cannot be held until the end 
of the world, whether the departed are meanwhile conscious or 
unconscious. 

Note. On the subject of the Intermediate State, see Pearson, J., On the Creed, 
Art. y. p. 340, sq.; Griffin, Bib. Sac. vol. xm. p. 153, sq.; Philips, D. W., Chr. Rev. 
vol. xx. 381, sq. 

§ III. The Resurrection of the Dead. 

By this we mean in general the restoration of man to his normal 
condition as a complex being, the reunion of body and spirit. 

The following questions deserve particular attention: — 

1. Will there be a resurrection of all the dead ? We answer affir- • 
matively, in view of such testimonies as follow — 

a. Of the Righteous. Luke 14 : 14; 20 : 34, sq.; 1 Cor. 6 : 14; 
15 : 12, sq. 35, sq.; 1 Thess. 4: 14, 15; Phil. 3 : 11. On the last 
passage Prof. Hackett remarks : “ To infer from this passage that 
the righteous only are to be raised at the last day would contra¬ 
dict the express declaration of our Lord in John 5 : 28, as well as 
the uniform teaching of the New Testament.” 

b. Of the Wicked. John 5 : 28, 29 ; (cf. Dan. 12: 2 ;) Acts 24: 
15 ; Rev. 20 : 13. 

On Acts 24: 15, Prof. Hackett remarks: “ The resurrection of 
the wicked in order to be punished is as clearly taught here, as 
that of the righteous to be rewarded.” 

2. When will the dead be raised ? 

We reply : At the end of the present world. John 5: 29 ; (cf 
Matt. 25: 46;) John 11: 24; Acts 17 : 31; 1 Cor. 15 : 23, 24, 52; 

1 Thess. 4: 16, 17; 2 Thess. 1: 7-9 ; 2 Peter 3:7; Rev. 20 : 1-6, 
11, sq. 

We do not find a notice in this last or any other passage, of 
Christ’s reigning visibly upon the earth before the final judgment. 
Others, however, find notices of such a reign in the following and 
similar passages. Matt. 19 : 28, sq.; Luke 19 : 11, sq.; Acts 1: 
6-8 ; 3: 21; 1 Cor. 15:23, sq.; 1 Thess. 4:16,17 ; 2 Thess. 1: 7-10; 


ESCHATOLOGY. 


203 


Rev. 20 : 1-7. None of these texts, however, except the last, are 
difficult; and the last does not seem to point with much clearness 
to a reign of Christ on earth. If the earth is to be renovated, this 
text leaves it to be done after the first resurrection. Indeed, the 
passages cited above, if understood of a literal reigning of Christ 
on the earth, do not agree in their testimony. We must, there¬ 
fore, interpret them otherwise. See Chr. JRev. vol. vi. p. 528, sq. ; 
Fairbairn, On Prophecy, and the Commentaries. 

3. What will be the nature of their raised bodies ? 

They will be — 

a. Real bodies additional to the spirit. 1 Cor. 15 : 35, 38. 

b. Yery different bodies from the present. 1 Cor. 15: 42-54; 
Phil. 3 : 21; 1 Cor 6 : 13. 

c. Adapted to spiritual life as the animal body is to animal life. 
1 Cor. 15 : 44. Yet — 

d. Such bodies as may be identified with the present. 

R. We have no special instruction as to the bodies which un¬ 
believers will possess hereafter, the above account being descrip¬ 
tive of such as believers will have. 

§ IY. The Last Judgment. 

The Scriptures teach — 

1. That it will be held by Christ. Matt. 25: 31; John 5: 22, 
27, sq.; Acts 17 : 31 ; Rom. 14: 9,10. In view of the following pas¬ 
sages, — Matt. 19: 28; Luke 22 : 30 ; 1 Cor. 6 : 2-4,— many inter¬ 
preters (e. g. Calvin, Olshausen, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette, Alford,) 
add that the apostles, and indeed Christians generally, will take 
part in the last judgment as Christ’s assessors. But it may be 
questioned whether any of these passages refer to the last judg¬ 
ment. Without doing violence to their language, we may suppose 
them to describe the dignity and employment of Christians either 
before or after that event. (Cf. Matt. 25:21-23; Luke 19:17- 
19; Rom. 5:17; Rev. 20 : 4-6; 22 : 5.) At any rate, we cannot 
imagine that Christians will act as judges with Christ until they 
have already been judged themselves. 

2. That it will be general. 

All men will be judged. An examination and comparison of 
the following passages will sustain this position. Matt. 12 : 36, 37; 
(cf. Eccl. 12: 14;) Matt. 25:32; Acts 17:31; Rom. 14: 10; 2 
Cor. 5 : 10; 2 Thess. 1: 6-10 ; Rev. 20: 11-15. 


204 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


R. Olshausen, Stier, Alford, and some others, maintain that 
7t&vTu xql ed-v-rj, in Matt. 25 : 32, refers to unbelievers exclusively, to 
all the nations as distinguished from the elect, on these grounds: 
1. Because the judgment of believers is described in the two 
preceding parables, from which this account differs essentially. 2. 
Because those on the right hand are represented as unconscious of 
having done anything for Christ, which is not true of believers; 
and 3. Because believers are not to be judged with the rest of 
mankind, but are to take part with Christ in judging them. Ols¬ 
hausen cites John 3 : 18: 5: 24; 1 Cor. 11 : 31. 

We believe no importance should be attached to the first and 
third of these reasons, and very little to the second. But there 
are grave objections to the interpretation. 1. Those on the right 
hand must be the elect, verse 34. 2. They must have befriended 

Christians as such , verses 35-40, (cf. Matt. 10: 40-42 ; Mark 9 : 
*41, 42.) 3. Those on the left are pot described as heathen, but 

simply as unbelievers, verses 43-45. 

On the other hand, Meyer holds that this whole description re¬ 
lates to believers in Christ; their judgment alone is here described. 
He urges :—(1) that the decision respecting each class depends on 
the disposition manifested towards Jesus Christ, — love not faith. 

(2.) That those judged are represented collectively as the flock 
of which Christ is the Shepherd. (3.) That the subjects to be 
judged are designated “ all nations.” For this presupposes the uni¬ 
versality of Christianity at the time of the Parusia. 

The second only of these reasons appears to have any weight; 
and this loses its weight when we recollect that Christ as Mediator 
is head of all mankind, and in a sense the Saviour of all. Besides, 
the description of the judgment here given introduces Christ as 
king, and brings forward the Shepherd and his flock to illustrate 
but a single point, — the separation of one class from another. 

3. That it will be righteous. 

Acts 17:31; Rom. 2: 6 ; 2 Cor. 5 : 10 ; Gal. 6: 7-10 ; Eph. 6 : 
8 ; Rev. 2 : 23 ; 20: 12 ; 22: 12, sq. 

R. We think this fact should be more frequently and earnestly 
asserted when the last judgment is referred to. It should be urged 
with all possible emphasis, as a first truth of Christianity, that no 
man will be wronged in the least by the final sentence, however 
dreadful it may be, which is passed upon him. 

4. That it will take place after the resurrection of all the dead. 
Matt. 25: 31, sq. ; Rev. 20 : 12, sq. 


ESCHATOLOGY. 


205 


V. The Final State of Unbelievers. 

On this subject we are taught — 

1. That this state begins directly after the last judgment. Matt. 
25 : 41, 46; Rom. 2 : 5, sq.; Rev. 20: 15. 

2. That it continues the same in kind forever. Matt. 12 : 32; 
25: 46; Mark 9: 43-48 ; Rev. 22 : 11; John 8: 21; (c/. Matt. 26: 
24; 1 John 5 : 16.) 

Meyer makes the following note on Matt. 25: 46. “ The abso¬ 
lute idea of eternity in respect to the punishments of hell, (cf. v. 
41,) is not to be set aside either by an appeal to the popular use of 
aidviog, (Paulus,) or by an appeal (De Wette) to the figurative 
term fire , to the incompatibility of the idea of the eternal with 
that of moral evil and its punishment, and to the warning design 
of the representation; but it stands fast exegetically by means of 
the contrasted a*c oviov, which signifies the endless Messianic 

life.” 

3. That in it the wicked will be conscious of great misery. Dan. 
12 : 2; Matt. 25 : 46; Mark 9 : 43-48; Rev. 20: 15, compared with 
20 : 10, and 21: 8 ; Rev. 22: 15, compared with Matt. 22: 13, and 
25: 30. 

R. a. The Bible nowhere teaches that the misery of the lost will 
be progressive. Such an opinion must be held, if at all, as an 
inference from the nature of the human soul, and may be in¬ 
correct. 

R. b. The Scriptures teach that some of the lost will suffer a 
greater punishment than others. Luke 12: 47, 48 ; Matt. 11: 21- 
24. See R. 3, above. 

R. c. It will be observed that we found our belief of the endless 
existence of the wicked on Biblical testimony. Not because we 
find no indications in the soul of its having been designed to live 
forever, but because it is unsafe to infer the actual destiny of any 
being from its original qualities when it has fallen into an abnormal 
condition. 


VI. The Final State of Believers. 

From such texts as the following, viz: Matt. 25 : 46; John 5 : 
29; 1 Cor. 15: 51, sq.; 1 Thess. 4: 16-18; 2 Thess. 1: 6-10; 2 
Tim. 4:8; Rev. 21: 1, sq ., we infer — 

1. That this state begins directly after the last judgment. 

2. That it continues the same in kind forever. 


206 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 


3. That in it believers will enjoy perfect blessedness. 

4. That this blessedness will be proportioned to their fidelity on 
earth. 

R. We may safely conclude, from the nature of the human soul, 
that this blessedness will be forever progressive. For the soul 
will be restored to its normal condition, ever adding to its knowl¬ 
edge, and thereby to its happiness. 


23 July l sol. 








































' 











* 




















Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 








PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
<724) 779-2111 
















* 




« 















































































































































































































































































































































































































